Guns - POLL - Do you/Would you own?

[DeanFL]

.
.
This is an ANONYMOUS POLL. Will not be tracked by responder etc.

With all the unrest going on in the USA currently and possibly into the future-

What is YOUR personal position on OWNING A FIREARM?
.
.
.

[Number 10 GI]

I didn't author this and the individual I got it from doesn't know the author either.


I don't carry a gun to kill people; I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil; I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the World.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government; I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry; I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone; I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man; I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate; I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it; I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.


Police protection is an oxymoron: Free citizens must protect themselves because police do not protect you from crime; they just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess. Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take a whoopin'!

[Gpsma]

Just go over to Shooters World and see how many people are buying guns.

I own more then the sumter county police

[Kenswing]

When seconds count the police are only minutes away..

[Freehiker]

One of the questions should be “I own multiple firearms”

������

[ejp52]

Curious, what business is it to you if people own a gun?

[EdFNJ]

Curious, what business is it to you if people own a gun? Probably the same business as if someone asked you "Are you a vegetarian?" or "Who are you going to vote for ?". You're not required to "vote" in the poll. He's not asking names just opinions. No one has to reply with a message, just answer the poll - or not. Besides you're not a real man around here unless you're packin' ! Ya gotta watch out for them thar varmints hiding behind the shrubs. BAM BAM! There's been lotsa shoot-ups in Brownwood which is why that cowboy is always stationed at the entrance to the square although if 75% of the people at City Fire bar (when it was opened) who are drunk as a skunk are carrying I'd be VERY scared. :D

{disclaimer: you is NOT YOU personally, just a generic "you" so don't get insulted! :D }

To stay on topic .... it's obvious that NO I don't. I'll take my chances in the wilds of The Villages Wilderness. The caravan isn't getting close enough.

[DeanFL]

Curious, what business is it to you if people own a gun?

.
.
...just curious, and would be interesting for ToTV population to know a sample result esp from The Villages. As I said completely anonymous. I have a pretty good idea of my neighbor's posession or not. And I certainly know my position and completed my poll selection.

Certainly not scientific. And...I have no dog in the hunt.... To each their own - as they say - Free Country.
.
.
.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I don't own a firearm and I won't own a firearm. I do own a bow and have a quiver of arrows, but I'm also not a hunter.

If I ever felt the need to catch my own food, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot down a deer for supper. I wouldn't feel guilty about murdering Bambi.

But I won't use a weapon to kill something I don't plan on consuming. And as such - I will never use a weapon against another human being.

I have no problem with other people choosing to own a firearm for self-defense or target shooting (which is fun, at least with archery).

I do have a problem with ANY people doing that though. I feel firearms need to have controls, checks and balances. It needs to be national. In every state in this country, you need a license to drive a car, and that license requires a written test, an eye test, and an actual driving test. I feel it is not unreasonable to require the same for anyone wanting a license to own a firearm. You have to know the laws of your state and the regulations for using it, you have to prove you're capable of seeing the target, and you have to prove you know how to use it properly.

I think that's reasonable. Sadly that's not the case in this country, some states don't care one way or another and some states have so many restrictions it's easier to just not bother at all.

[retiredguy123]

I find it ironic that the more people talk about gun control, the more people decide to buy guns.

[Velvet]

Did in the past. Handguns and crossbow. Not for self defense, for competition. I won’t willing go anywhere where I need a gun for self defense if I can help it.

[TimeForChange]

I have owned guns all my life. I am prepared and will stay prepared.

[Mrprez]

Probably the same business as if someone asked you "Are you a vegetarian?" or "Who are you going to vote for ?". You're not required to "vote" in the poll. He's not asking names just opinions. No one has to reply with a message, just answer the poll - or not. Besides you're not a real man around here unless you're packin' ! Ya gotta watch out for them thar varmints hiding behind the shrubs. BAM BAM! There's been lotsa shoot-ups in Brownwood which is why that cowboy is always stationed at the entrance to the square although if 75% of the people at City Fire bar (when it was opened) who are drunk as a skunk are carrying I'd be VERY scared. :D

{disclaimer: you is NOT YOU personally, just a generic "you" so don't get insulted! :D }

To stay on topic .... it's obvious that NO I don't. I'll take my chances in the wilds of The Villages Wilderness. The caravan isn't getting close enough.

It is illegal to be sitting at a bar drinking while in possession of a firearm.

[Bad Moon Rising]

It's Illegal to be carrying a gun under the influence of alcohol no matter where you are!

[Coal Miner]

If needing to carry a gun makes America great then I. Out.

[tsmall22204]

This post is lame. What thrill do people get out of seeing people respond to their stupid questions?

[ruralgoddess]

good grief

[jacksonbrown]

Sheriff Grady tells rioters, looters to stay out of Polk County - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwFuXu665-k)

[Slevy1]

I own multiple firearms for self defense!

[matandch]

My mother aways taught me that guns were dangerous.

[camaguey48]

My mother aways taught me that guns were dangerous.
So are cars. Don't leave home without one.

[Southw2]

Guns are not dangerous, guns don't just shoot other people, leave a gun in your house and it will not kill you.
just like a knife is not dangerous or a car or any other object, its the person holding them or controlling them that makes them dangerous.
I never heard or seen a gun kill someone on its own,
People kill or shoot people with guns,knives,hammers,sticks,rocks cars etc.

[dewilson58]

My mother aways taught me that guns were dangerous.


So is a rock, a baseball bat, a knife, a pipe wrench, a chair, a skateboard.


:ohdear:

[Scorpyo]

Sorry, but being from NYC I shy away from disclosing what kind of security or lack thereof I possess no matter what assurances I get regarding confidentiality.

[Travelingal702]

.
.
This is an ANONYMOUS POLL. Will not be tracked by responder etc.

With all the unrest going on in the USA currently and possibly into the future-

What is YOUR personal position on OWNING A FIREARM?
.
.
.
Yes, I own a gun and I certainly wouldn't hesitate to use it if I felt my life, or the life of anyone I love or know, was in danger. Anyone that says otherwise is delusional.

[dewilson58]

Sorry, but being from NYC I shy away from disclosing what kind of security or lack thereof I possess no matter what assurances I get regarding confidentiality.


It's okay, I don't have a skateboard any more.

[Garylj24]

The constitution should be the only thing I need to carry, our forefathers new that.

[David Fletcher]

Oddly the facts show that many times the gun Owner ends up shooting them self.

The facts do not bear out that owning a gun gives you any extra protection or safety.

America believes the second amendment was written to allow them to have a hand gun in a purse. The second amendment was never intended to be used as it is today.

I am sure the founders would be horrified as to how it all worked out.

[dennisgavin]

I think the founders would be proud!

[dewilson58]

Oddly the facts show that many times the gun Owner ends up shooting them self. The facts do not bear out that owning a gun gives you any extra protection or safety.
:1rotfl:"facts show" does not equate to facts.

[Beyond The Wall]

Just because you own a firearm does not make you a right wing nut job. Get training, go practice and be prepared. If the recent events, pandemic and “mostly peaceful” protest have taught us anything is rely on yourselves and be prepared.

Also “ Due to the high cost of ammunition, no warning shots will be fired!

[Westie Man]

But I don't currently own a gun

[VApeople]

Even though we may disagree about the use of firearms, maybe we can agree this is a great song.

Waylon Jennings "The Devil's Right Hand" - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKN631r8-4s)

[stan the man]

NO anonymous voting..........

[Freehiker]

The facts do not bear out that owning a gun gives you any extra protection or safety.

I guess the police and military carry guns just to look cool then...

:MOJE_whot:

[dougjb]

I am fully in support of the Second Amendment as it would properly be interpreted by strict originalists on the Supreme Court (of which, some claim to be but, in reality, none are).

By that I mean, any citizen should be allowed to own as many muzzle loading rifles as they wish (since that was really the only weapon available when the Bill of Rights was adopted). Citizens can also own as many muzzle loading cannons as they wish. But, as to any other gun, rifle or armament, absolutlely not. No other guns should be allowed under an originalist's view of the Second Amendment. All armaments other than muzzle loaders should be confiscated and after a reasonable time for compliance, the owners should be prosecuted. There is NO need for anyone to possess or use the type of weaponry now available.

[Pedrocarrasco01@yahoo.com]

I don't own a firearm and I won't own a firearm. I do own a bow and have a quiver of arrows, but I'm also not a hunter.

If I ever felt the need to catch my own food, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot down a deer for supper. I wouldn't feel guilty about murdering Bambi.

But I won't use a weapon to kill something I don't plan on consuming. And as such - I will never use a weapon against another human being.

I have no problem with other people choosing to own a firearm for self-defense or target shooting (which is fun, at least with archery).

I do have a problem with ANY people doing that though. I feel firearms need to have controls, checks and balances. It needs to be national. In every state in this country, you need a license to drive a car, and that license requires a written test, an eye test, and an actual driving test. I feel it is not unreasonable to require the same for anyone wanting a license to own a firearm. You have to know the laws of your state and the regulations for using it, you have to prove you're capable of seeing the target, and you have to prove you know how to use it properly.

I think that's reasonable. Sadly that's not the case in this country, some states don't care one way or another and some states have so many restrictions it's easier to just not bother at all.
I own several, I would die first than allow any confiscation, I was born in Cuba, came over in 1962, the first thing that Fidel Castro did was to confiscate all the guns from the people, after that he established communism, it was easy since the population could not revolt, therefore 2% of the population controlled 98% of it, he also established “revolutionary committees” which was a family set up on each block that their job was to find out what each family within the block was up to including eavesdropping on them.
We live in trying times, I saw what is happening here already in Cuba, the riots, looting, defunding of the police, misinformation, the media control, whether you believe it or not, those are communist tactics, please don’t say “It won’t happen here” I remember my father saying that too, I also remember the same scenario happened in Venezuela, total control of the people is their goal and they are getting closer to it. MAY GOD BLESS MY COUNTRY AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE.

[kanoa1kale2]

It is illegal to be sitting at a bar drinking while in possession of a firearm.

Depends on what you are drinking!

[George Page]

Only a fool would respond to this survey.
Oops, I think I just did.

[Malsua]

I am fully in support of the Second Amendment as it would properly be interpreted by strict originalists on the Supreme Court (of which, some claim to be but, in reality, none are).

By that I mean, any citizen should be allowed to own as many muzzle loading rifles as they wish (since that was really the only weapon available when the Bill of Rights was adopted). Citizens can also own as many muzzle loading cannons as they wish. But, as to any other gun, rifle or armament, absolutlely not. No other guns should be allowed under an originalist's view of the Second Amendment. All armaments other than muzzle loaders should be confiscated and after a reasonable time for compliance, the owners should be prosecuted. There is NO need for anyone to possess or use the type of weaponry now available.

The second amendment is very clear. The federalist papers and other writings clarify it further. The point was to prevent government from having a monopoly on violence and that the people should be the final check on government by having equivalent arms. Not many muskets teams in the Marines are there?

By your interpretation, get out the printing press or quill because that's the only freedom of expression that is protected speech.

[theruizs]

One day all will realize how wrong guns are, or any other object kept as a weapon. The only reason to believe that guns are necessary to protect life and/or property is if you believe this life is all there is. If you take another life, or harm another, even in defense of some form, you will have to make amends to the one harmed. Heaven is not what you think it is. And yes, the same is true for war and soldiers, although for most soldiers who were teenagers those who trained them may be just as culpable. Pooh pooh this now, that’s ok. You will eventually see the truth of it.

[peglegnc]

Probably would own handgun if wife wasn’t so adamantly opposed. Much prefer happy wife over owning handgun.

[graciegirl]

I don't own a firearm and I won't own a firearm. I do own a bow and have a quiver of arrows, but I'm also not a hunter.

If I ever felt the need to catch my own food, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot down a deer for supper. I wouldn't feel guilty about murdering Bambi.

But I won't use a weapon to kill something I don't plan on consuming. And as such - I will never use a weapon against another human being.

I have no problem with other people choosing to own a firearm for self-defense or target shooting (which is fun, at least with archery).

I do have a problem with ANY people doing that though. I feel firearms need to have controls, checks and balances. It needs to be national. In every state in this country, you need a license to drive a car, and that license requires a written test, an eye test, and an actual driving test. I feel it is not unreasonable to require the same for anyone wanting a license to own a firearm. You have to know the laws of your state and the regulations for using it, you have to prove you're capable of seeing the target, and you have to prove you know how to use it properly.

I think that's reasonable. Sadly that's not the case in this country, some states don't care one way or another and some states have so many restrictions it's easier to just not bother at all.

I don't own one. I reserve the right to own one in the future. And if the riots keep happening and the ummm unrest spreads, that may be sooner than later.

To all reading this;

And their children and grandchildren;

If a cop says stop.

STOP!

[Pmarlow]

I am fully in support of the Second Amendment as it would properly be interpreted by strict originalists on the Supreme Court (of which, some claim to be but, in reality, none are).

By that I mean, any citizen should be allowed to own as many muzzle loading rifles as they wish (since that was really the only weapon available when the Bill of Rights was adopted). Citizens can also own as many muzzle loading cannons as they wish. But, as to any other gun, rifle or armament, absolutlely not. No other guns should be allowed under an originalist's view of the Second Amendment. All armaments other than muzzle loaders should be confiscated and after a reasonable time for compliance, the owners should be prosecuted. There is NO need for anyone to possess or use the type of weaponry now available.
You obviously don’t know what the constitution says and even why it says what it does. The constitution says “we have the right to bear arms.” If you read the Federalists Papers the reason for this is so the people can protect themselves and their property from others including the government if the government doesn’t live up to its responsibilities as defined in the Constitution.

[stadry]

we probably have as many as we need but not as many as we want

[meridian5850]

I don't own a firearm and I won't own a firearm. I do own a bow and have a quiver of arrows, but I'm also not a hunter.

If I ever felt the need to catch my own food, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot down a deer for supper. I wouldn't feel guilty about murdering Bambi.

But I won't use a weapon to kill something I don't plan on consuming. And as such - I will never use a weapon against another human being.

I have no problem with other people choosing to own a firearm for self-defense or target shooting (which is fun, at least with archery).

I do have a problem with ANY people doing that though. I feel firearms need to have controls, checks and balances. It needs to be national. In every state in this country, you need a license to drive a car, and that license requires a written test, an eye test, and an actual driving test. I feel it is not unreasonable to require the same for anyone wanting a license to own a firearm. You have to know the laws of your state and the regulations for using it, you have to prove you're capable of seeing the target, and you have to prove you know how to use it properly.

I think that's reasonable. Sadly that's not the case in this country, some states don't care one way or another and some states have so many restrictions it's easier to just not bother at all.


...right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...

And there are controls. Can't own a fully automatic weapon, illegal to carry while under the influence, etc.

[graciegirl]

You obviously don’t know what the constitution says and even why it says what it does. The constitution says “we have the right to bear arms.” If you read the Federalists Papers the reason for this is so the people can protect themselves and their property from others including the government if the government doesn’t live up to its responsibilities as defined in the Constitution.

When I read rhetoric like this I have to think that a person was raised in a very dangerous area or that they are very insecure.

We know what the laws are. I grew up in the Midwest among hunters who would eat rabbit and venison that they shot. I grew up in a household with a police officer. I grew up with respect for guns and thought it was good I know how to shoot if I would need to. I buy meat at the grocery and carefully read the papers and watch the news and evaluate opinions from folks on my computer and feel kind of reassured that some of my neighbors who are solid and have backgrounds that are very reassuring have guns.

But when there is a "swagger" in a comment I can sense it.

[Number 10 GI]

I don't own a firearm and I won't own a firearm. I do own a bow and have a quiver of arrows, but I'm also not a hunter.

If I ever felt the need to catch my own food, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot down a deer for supper. I wouldn't feel guilty about murdering Bambi.

But I won't use a weapon to kill something I don't plan on consuming. And as such - I will never use a weapon against another human being.

I have no problem with other people choosing to own a firearm for self-defense or target shooting (which is fun, at least with archery).

I do have a problem with ANY people doing that though. I feel firearms need to have controls, checks and balances. It needs to be national. In every state in this country, you need a license to drive a car, and that license requires a written test, an eye test, and an actual driving test. I feel it is not unreasonable to require the same for anyone wanting a license to own a firearm. You have to know the laws of your state and the regulations for using it, you have to prove you're capable of seeing the target, and you have to prove you know how to use it properly.

I think that's reasonable. Sadly that's not the case in this country, some states don't care one way or another and some states have so many restrictions it's easier to just not bother at all.

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right guaranteed under the constitution. The 2d Amendment bestows a right for all citizens to keep and bear arms. Jim Crow laws were held unconstitutional and that is what you are advocating, requiring a test to exercise a constitutional right.

[Number 10 GI]

My mother aways taught me that guns were dangerous.

Yes they are and so are knives, baseball bats, a length of pipe, motor vehicles, ladders, a crowbar, a hammer, and a whole lot of other things.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

I was a muti tour paratrooper in Vietnam , after 6 years in military I went to another agency . I spent many more years in Vietnam , Laos and Cambodia.The total number of countries that I either fired a gun or had one fired at me is 23 . I’m 81 haven’t had or never will have a gun for 21years.you can shoot all you want at those ranges but in a moment of danger with the adrenaline surging through your body you might just have a heart attack before anything else . I still walk around Miami , New Orleans , shoot dice in a couple of illegal games in Orlando ( not now sadly because of virus) still no need for a gun I’m from Boston , Massachusetts is one of the hardest states to get a permit and every year is ranked lowest or next to lowest in murders by gun

[Number 10 GI]

Oddly the facts show that many times the gun Owner ends up shooting them self.

The facts do not bear out that owning a gun gives you any extra protection or safety.

America believes the second amendment was written to allow them to have a hand gun in a purse. The second amendment was never intended to be used as it is today.

I am sure the founders would be horrified as to how it all worked out.

And for what purpose was it intended?

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.

What don't you understand about what it says?

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

[Number 10 GI]

I am fully in support of the Second Amendment as it would properly be interpreted by strict originalists on the Supreme Court (of which, some claim to be but, in reality, none are).

By that I mean, any citizen should be allowed to own as many muzzle loading rifles as they wish (since that was really the only weapon available when the Bill of Rights was adopted). Citizens can also own as many muzzle loading cannons as they wish. But, as to any other gun, rifle or armament, absolutlely not. No other guns should be allowed under an originalist's view of the Second Amendment. All armaments other than muzzle loaders should be confiscated and after a reasonable time for compliance, the owners should be prosecuted. There is NO need for anyone to possess or use the type of weaponry now available.

Then you shouldn't be allowed to use a computer and the internet to express your opinions. They didn't exist back then either. A quill and inkwell on parchment worked then and would work today.

We don't need motor vehicles, airplanes or even trains as they didn't exist at that time either. Horses and wagons worked for them.

[loweglor]

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right guaranteed under the constitution. The 2d Amendment bestows a right for all citizens to keep and bear arms. Jim Crow laws were held unconstitutional and that is what you are advocating, requiring a test to exercise a constitutional right.

I don't believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was for people to walk around the streets carrying guns and randomly shooting people. I believe it was to carry a gun if imminent danger from government. The law was written in a time where danger of being killed from other items, such as cars, didn't exist but when it became apparent people could be killed by cars then laws, ability tests and licenses were required. We should afford the gun the same respect we afford the automobile.

[davem4616]

I sold all my hunting rifles before moving to Florida...I always had a 'pistol permit' for target and hunting purposes, but never owned a hand gun. My dad carried a 57 magnum when we went deer hunting, he wanted a 'close up weapon' in the event he shot a bear and needed it, I never did...guess I thought that I was a better marksman, lol

I've given thought to purchasing a hand gun recently...but doubt that I will.

[davem4616]

I don't believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was for people to walk around the streets carrying guns and randomly shooting people. I believe it was to carry a gun if imminent danger from government. The law was written in a time where danger of being killed from other items, such as cars, didn't exist but when it became apparent people could be killed by cars then laws, ability tests and licenses were required. We should afford the gun the same respect we afford the automobile.



I agree. Our 'founding fathers' were looking at a much different world than the one we live in today.

[zendog3]

There is strong evidence that having a gun in your house is a bad idea. (You can look this up) People with guns in their house are more likely to be killed in gun violence than people who do not. If you have a gun in your house, sit is more likely to kill a family member than someone outside the house. Guns in a house are frequently used by children to kill themselves and others.
That said, although guns make you less safe rather than more safe, people with guns feel safer. People ought to have the right to feel safer -- But we who do not own guns should have assurances that gun owners are RESPONSIBLE. Laws to insure responsible ownership should include: 1) Liability insurance of one million dollars per gun owned. (if you are paralyzed for life by a gun shot, you should have compensation to care for you and your family.) 2. Laws requiring that all guns out of the possession of the owner, including in the home, should impose a fine and loss of gun owning privilege for any gun discovered not in a locked gun storage facility - gun safe. 3) Owners of hand guns should be required to attend the same class we expect of police officers including tactical usage, and knowledge of laws on when use of lethal force is and is not justified. (these courses may be taught by the ARA) Military style assault weapons should be stored and used only in an approved armory. 4) If a gun, out of the possession of the owner, and not stored in a gun safe, the gun owner is guilty of a felony. If that gun is used in a crime, the gun owner should go to prison.
In short, no citizen should be deprived of the right to own a gun, but a gun owner takes upon him/herself the power of life and death. We all have the right to expect the owner has a high degree of responsibility. These expectations are essentially the same that we expect of automobile ownership -- training, safe equipment, liability insurance, and penalty for irresponsible use.

[Number 10 GI]

I don't believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was for people to walk around the streets carrying guns and randomly shooting people. I believe it was to carry a gun if imminent danger from government. The law was written in a time where danger of being killed from other items, such as cars, didn't exist but when it became apparent people could be killed by cars then laws, ability tests and licenses were required. We should afford the gun the same respect we afford the automobile.

What you think means nothing, it is what the originators of the constitution thought and you can discover that by reading the Federalist Papers. That's why the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed".

There are people who don't have the mental capacity to cast a responsible vote so do we test these people also? There are people who should never have children so let's license childbirth.

[sail33or]

I moved to The Villages from TEXAS. My friends and neighbors know I am from Texas.

Went to a Halloween Party here once as a cowboy. I had a fake toy gun and holster. This actually offended/scared about 50% of guests. (cause I asked). Yes, even though it was plastic and had an orange cover over the barrel.

So I expect answers to any gun question to be split.

[Topspinmo]

My mother aways taught me that guns were dangerous.

So, that’s why you didn’t get red Ryder?

[airstreamingypsy]

[QUOTE=Beyond The Wall;1825772]Just because you own a firearm does not make you a right wing nut job. >

It does if you own more than the entire Sumter county Sheriffs department. Sounds more like you need a ***** enlargement.

[BlackhawksFan]

I don't own any weapons, never have, never will but if someone else does that's fine with me as long as they're owned legallly, safely stored in a locking gun box or safe, licensed to have a gun and keep proficient in the skill should they ever need to use it.

[024engine]

.
.
This is an ANONYMOUS POLL. Will not be tracked by responder etc.

With all the unrest going on in the USA currently and possibly into the future-

What is YOUR personal position on OWNING A FIREARM?
.
.
.
This poll is not anyone's business but mine, thank you very much!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Yes, I own a gun and I certainly wouldn't hesitate to use it if I felt my life, or the life of anyone I love or know, was in danger. Anyone that says otherwise is delusional.

Judging people who don't do things the way you do, just because they don't do things the same way you do, is rude.

[Robin Farris]

I own many & I’m not about to give them up! In these times you must be prepared to protect yourself & your family.

[Number 10 GI]

I was a muti tour paratrooper in Vietnam , after 6 years in military I went to another agency . I spent many more years in Vietnam , Laos and Cambodia.The total number of countries that I either fired a gun or had one fired at me is 23 . I’m 81 haven’t had or never will have a gun for 21years.you can shoot all you want at those ranges but in a moment of danger with the adrenaline surging through your body you might just have a heart attack before anything else . I still walk around Miami , New Orleans , shoot dice in a couple of illegal games in Orlando ( not now sadly because of virus) still no need for a gun I’m from Boston , Massachusetts is one of the hardest states to get a permit and every year is ranked lowest or next to lowest in murders by gun

I've only been able to find one year that MA was rated the lowest, 2015. The charts I've reviewed show the state to be mid pack on firearm homicides. There are other factors that influence firearm homicides and all homicides, income levels, education levels, and the percentage of poverty. To claim gun control is the major factor is bogus.

[stephen.q.pankow]

There's an implicit assumption in the available answers that the only reason to consider owning a firearm is for protection, which is ridiculous. A simple option of "I would consider owning a firearm" would eliminate this bias, and I expect would be a more common answer if it were available.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I own several, I would die first than allow any confiscation, I was born in Cuba, came over in 1962, the first thing that Fidel Castro did was to confiscate all the guns from the people, after that he established communism, it was easy since the population could not revolt, therefore 2% of the population controlled 98% of it, he also established “revolutionary committees” which was a family set up on each block that their job was to find out what each family within the block was up to including eavesdropping on them.
We live in trying times, I saw what is happening here already in Cuba, the riots, looting, defunding of the police, misinformation, the media control, whether you believe it or not, those are communist tactics, please don’t say “It won’t happen here” I remember my father saying that too, I also remember the same scenario happened in Venezuela, total control of the people is their goal and they are getting closer to it. MAY GOD BLESS MY COUNTRY AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE.

I'm not understanding why you chose to type that in direct response to my post. They don't seem to be related in any way. Your post doesn't agree OR disagree with mine, it's as though it's about something entirely different.

[024engine]

When seconds count the police are only minutes away..
This poll is not anyone's business but mine, thank you very much!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right guaranteed under the constitution. The 2d Amendment bestows a right for all citizens to keep and bear arms. Jim Crow laws were held unconstitutional and that is what you are advocating, requiring a test to exercise a constitutional right.

Actually no, it bestows those rights on a well-regulated Militia.

Are you a member of the Militia? No? Then it's not a "right," for you. Are you wanting to be a member of the Militia? Then great. You pass. If you want to possess a firearm but are not willing to be a member of a well-regulated Militia, willing and able and prepared to fight against a tyrannical government, then you are asking for a privilege and not a constitutional right.

So prove that you a) know the law, b) can see your target with or without glasses. c) know how to use the weapon properly.

Are you saying you shouldn't have to prove any of those three things? If that's the case, let's just arm every man, woman, and child - if they're capable of holding a weapon, then they get to have one. Don't bother teaching them how to use it - because knowing how isn't required by the Constitution. Of course - ammunition is also not a Constitutional right. They can have firearms - but nowhere in the Constitution does it say those firearms can be loaded.

You want to pick nits? I can pick them all day.

Edited because I had a brain-poop and swapped out "well-armed" with what should've been "well-regulated." And by regulated - they meant "controls." It meant that even the constitution agrees that there should be some CONTROLS over how and who and under what circumstances a person gets to enjoy that right to bear arms.

[ron32162]

Maybe the caravans are not close enough for you to worry but during hurricanes people that want that extra food and bottle water do not wait till its at the door, its too late the food is already gone.

[EdFNJ]

It is illegal to be sitting at a bar drinking while in possession of a firearm. LOL, OK. :popcorn: So is driving over the speed limit ....... so let's assume everyone follows the law (yea uh-huh) they leave the bar stinkin' drunk and drive around in their car with it.

[graciegirl]

Judging people who don't do things the way you do, just because they don't do things the same way you do, is rude.

Now. Now. There is not a soul alive who doesn't do it. Some call it unchristian. Some call it political. Some call it getting to the heart of the matter.

[EdFNJ]

It's Illegal to be carrying a gun under the influence of alcohol no matter where you are! So is going through a stop sign without fully stopping no matter where you are!! (I'll raise you one "!") Your point?

[EdFNJ]

I own multiple firearms for self defense! But you only have 2 hands. :coolsmiley:

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

From 2007 through 2018 gun deaths per 100,000 people Florida 9th Massachusetts 49, in 2018 Florida 2,902 murders Massachusetts 238 hmmm one state of everyone gets a gun , the other hardly anyone , you tell me which state your safer in , oh and we don’t need an old guy militia , that’s what national guard is for

[LianneMigiano]

One of the questions should be “I own multiple firearms”

������
Why? For bragging rights? You can probably only shoot ONE AT A TIME.....

[EdFNJ]

I own many & I’m not about to give them up! In these times you must be prepared to protect yourself & your family.




https://i.ibb.co/NNq93WL/2020-08-31-10-19-07.jpg (https://ibb.co/X5P74Fz)

[billethkid]

...... nothing new (or surprising) in pro gun and anti gun discussions

[davem4616]

From 2007 through 2018 gun deaths per 100,000 people Florida 9th Massachusetts 49, in 2018 Florida 2,902 murders Massachusetts 238 hmmm one state of everyone gets a gun , the other hardly anyone , you tell me which state your safer in , oh and we don’t need an old guy militia , that’s what national guard is for


'old guy militia'.....now that's funny

made me start to think what an all star cast would be if it was made into a movie...and they were all alive:
- Buddy Hackett
- Red Skelton
- Danny Kaye
- Lou Costello
- Wilfred Brimley
- Laurel and Hardy
- Andy Devine
- Don Knotts

who did I leave out...oh ya, Duke

[LG999]

Why are you taking this poll?

[Bob3302]

why are you taking this poll?


do not answer this poll....

[Joe V.]

Actually no, it bestows those rights on a well-regulated Militia.

Are you a member of the Militia? No? Then it's not a "right," for you. Are you wanting to be a member of the Militia? Then great. You pass. If you want to possess a firearm but are not willing to be a member of a well-regulated Militia, willing and able and prepared to fight against a tyrannical government, then you are asking for a privilege and not a constitutional right.

So prove that you a) know the law, b) can see your target with or without glasses. c) know how to use the weapon properly.

Are you saying you shouldn't have to prove any of those three things? If that's the case, let's just arm every man, woman, and child - if they're capable of holding a weapon, then they get to have one. Don't bother teaching them how to use it - because knowing how isn't required by the Constitution. Of course - ammunition is also not a Constitutional right. They can have firearms - but nowhere in the Constitution does it say those firearms can be loaded.

You want to pick nits? I can pick them all day.

Edited because I had a brain-poop and swapped out "well-armed" with what should've been "well-regulated." And by regulated - they meant "controls." It meant that even the constitution agrees that there should be some CONTROLS over how and who and under what circumstances a person gets to enjoy that right to bear arms.

From Reason.com, Brian Doherty | From the December 2019 issue:

The structure of the Second Amendment has invited decades of dueling interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.

[George Page]

Muzzle loaded! A joke right? Correct logic dictates that citizens have the same weapons as the government, regardless of the year, decade or century.

[Tsmart]

It's illegal to carry a gun with any kind of mask on.

[NoMoSno]

It's illegal to carry a gun with any kind of mask on.
Depends on the state you live:
Mandatory Mask Orders: Can You Still Carry in Your State? (https://www.uslawshield.com/mask-orders-carry-in-state/)

[DeanFL]

Why are you taking this poll?

.
.
well, apparently, if you took some time and ACTUALLY read it and several other posts - you would know.
.
.
.

[sloanst]

Do you know who is hurt most by gun control laws and regulations? The poor, mostly the African American poor that live in the most dangerous areas in this country. Those that can least afford to pay the cost of licensing (license always have a cost) are the most restricted from protecting themselves and their families. The 2nd Amendment ends with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Forcing the poor to make payments they can not afford is "infringement".

[jammendolia]

so are hammers,
knives, hatchets and bricks

[Neils]

I don't own a firearm and I won't own a firearm. I do own a bow and have a quiver of arrows, but I'm also not a hunter.

If I ever felt the need to catch my own food, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot down a deer for supper. I wouldn't feel guilty about murdering Bambi.

But I won't use a weapon to kill something I don't plan on consuming. And as such - I will never use a weapon against another human being.

I have no problem with other people choosing to own a firearm for self-defense or target shooting (which is fun, at least with archery).

I do have a problem with ANY people doing that though. I feel firearms need to have controls, checks and balances. It needs to be national. In every state in this country, you need a license to drive a car, and that license requires a written test, an eye test, and an actual driving test. I feel it is not unreasonable to require the same for anyone wanting a license to own a firearm. You have to know the laws of your state and the regulations for using it, you have to prove you're capable of seeing the target, and you have to prove you know how to use it properly.

I think that's reasonable. Sadly that's not the case in this country, some states don't care one way or another and some states have so many restrictions it's easier to just not bother at all.

Suggest that people need to be tested and pay for a license to post pro-communist propaganda.

Strange that dome of those people that demand respect of the 1st amendment rights can so willingly ignore our 2nd amendment rights.

[Jayhawk]

Oddly the facts show that many times the gun Owner ends up shooting them self.

The facts do not bear out that owning a gun gives you any extra protection or safety.

America believes the second amendment was written to allow them to have a hand gun in a purse. The second amendment was never intended to be used as it is today.

I am sure the founders would be horrified as to how it all worked out.

I for one would LOVE to see your proof of the "facts" and assertions you provided above.

Please share.

[Foxtrot]

Gun laws were started by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves.

[Neils]

.
.
This is an ANONYMOUS POLL. Will not be tracked by responder etc.

With all the unrest going on in the USA currently and possibly into the future-

What is YOUR personal position on OWNING A FIREARM?
.
.
.

More click bait. Ignore it. If you want to keep your family safe then get a gun and learn to use it safely.

[Chitown]

Interesting topic. Anyone who has ever lived in a big city knows that as much as you may love and support your police officers when a home invasion is in progress you have seconds to react and grab your gun before your door is either kicked in or pryed open with a steel crow bar. Calling 911 talking to a dispatcher, dispatching the call and finally the police response may take 8-10 minutes. I want everyone to take a look at your leni’s if you have a screened in Leni like me, A razor or screw driver will punch through the screen like butter without a sound. And that cheep latch on your glass sliding doors is nothing. The same with the front door. A crowbar will pop that door open in 5 seconds. I wouldn’t be caught dead without at least one loaded handgun in the house.

[sloanst]

This is a typical argument posed by gun control advocates. Why compare Massachusetts to Florida and no other state? Because you cherry picked data that would satisfy your position. Why limit your data from 2007 to 2018. Why not use data from 1997 or 1987? Because you cherry picked data to satisfy your argument. Do you know what that is called? LYING.

[Jayhawk]

I don't own any weapons, never have, never will but if someone else does that's fine with me as long as they're owned legallly, safely stored in a locking gun box or safe, licensed to have a gun and keep proficient in the skill should they ever need to use it.

While I can appreciate your sentiment, a gun stored and locked in a safe is completely useless. The Bad Guy isn't going to give you time to unlock the safe. No different than carrying a gun with no ammo. Useless.

[Neils]

I am fully in support of the Second Amendment as it would properly be interpreted by strict originalists on the Supreme Court (of which, some claim to be but, in reality, none are).

By that I mean, any citizen should be allowed to own as many muzzle loading rifles as they wish (since that was really the only weapon available when the Bill of Rights was adopted). Citizens can also own as many muzzle loading cannons as they wish. But, as to any other gun, rifle or armament, absolutlely not. No other guns should be allowed under an originalist's view of the Second Amendment. All armaments other than muzzle loaders should be confiscated and after a reasonable time for compliance, the owners should be prosecuted. There is NO need for anyone to possess or use the type of weaponry now available.

So that means that your first amendment right must be limited to only communication methods available at that time. No text, phone, internet posts, electronic bullhorns, etc.
Communist supporting posters should be prosecuted and not claim 1st amendment rights

[Jayhawk]

Interesting topic. Anyone who has ever lived in a big city knows that as much as you may love and support your police officers when a home invasion is in progress you have seconds to react and grab your gun before your door is either kicked in or pryed open with a steel crow bar. Calling 911 talking to a dispatcher, dispatching the call and finally the police response may take 8-10 minutes. I want everyone to take a look at your leni’s if you have a screened in Leni like me, A razor or screw driver will punch through the screen like butter without a sound. And that cheep latch on your glass sliding doors is nothing. The same with the front door. A crowbar will pop that door open in 5 seconds. I wouldn’t be caught dead without at least one loaded handgun in the house.

Completely agree, and I'm not even from Chitown. :coolsmiley:

[bob47]

Yes they are and so are knives, baseball bats, a length of pipe, motor vehicles, ladders, a crowbar, a hammer, and a whole lot of other things.

That's true. But you know what? A baseball bat or a knife doesn't have the ability to maim or kill somebody 100 yards away on the other side of Spanish Springs town square.

[sloanst]

FYI, It is illegal in the State of Florida to possess a concealed firearm within 15 feet of a bar (where alcohol is being dispensed). So, if you witness this, by all means dial 911. I will support you. Alcohol and guns do not belong together. Period.

[Rebel Pirate]

I am fully in support of the Second Amendment as it would properly be interpreted by strict originalists on the Supreme Court (of which, some claim to be but, in reality, none are).

By that I mean, any citizen should be allowed to own as many muzzle loading rifles as they wish (since that was really the only weapon available when the Bill of Rights was adopted). Citizens can also own as many muzzle loading cannons as they wish. But, as to any other gun, rifle or armament, absolutlely not. No other guns should be allowed under an originalist's view of the Second Amendment. All armaments other than muzzle loaders should be confiscated and after a reasonable time for compliance, the owners should be prosecuted. There is NO need for anyone to possess or use the type of weaponry now available.

Similarly, I support the first amendment:

1. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the only means of written communication was by printing single-sheets individually following hand-setting type.

2. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the only way to 'peaceably assemble' was in person.

3. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the only way to petition the government was to get hand-written signatures on pieces of paper hand-carried from one person to the next.

1a. So, let's get rid of off-set printing, lithograph printing, computers, fax machines, email, texting, social media, etc.

2a. So, let's get rid of telephones that enable teleconferencing, and computers that enable 'zoom'-meeting, etc.

3a. So, let's get rid of (again) any of that fancy-schmancy new-fangled communication equipment that makes collecting signatures more efficient.

I've seen this suggestion before (citizens can own a blunderbuss only) and it's just as silly as 1, 2, 3, 1a, 2a, 3a above. There's a difference between a principle and the instantiation of a principle. But, many people prefer keeping things simple beyond the point of being ridiculous.

[sloanst]

I for one would LOVE to see your proof of the "facts" and assertions you provided above.

Please share.

Yeah, that person :MOJE_whot: has no idea what they are talking about.

[sloanst]

Hunting isn't about the weapon, it is about the skill. Finding, patterning and getting close enough to accurately harvest the animal humanely is much more difficult than you believe. Otherwise, you are just walking in the woods with something in your hand.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

I for one would LOVE to see your proof of the "facts" and assertions you provided above.

Please share. 2007 to 2018 gun deaths per 100,000 fl ranked 9th , Massachusetts 49th , 2018 gun deaths fl 2,802, Massachusetts with very dense population 258 Florida easy to get gun mass not so much whose safer that’s all I’m interested in

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

Suggest that people need to be tested and pay for a license to post pro-communist propaganda.

Strange that dome of those people that demand respect of the 1st amendment rights can so willingly ignore our 2nd amendment rights. I’ll destroy all there reputations signe joe McCarthy

[SacDQ]

I never take POLLS , nor due I talk to strangers about my personal Opinions.

[MACH7SS]

While I can appreciate your sentiment, a gun stored and locked in a safe is completely useless. The Bad Guy isn't going to give you time to unlock the safe. No different than carrying a gun with no ammo. Useless.
Actually, the modern gun safe is extremely quick to open. They make units that respond to the owner's fingerprint and they make units where the owner can set up a combination using their fingers in a pre-set pattern. For example, the safe has a hand printed on the top where the owner places his/her fingers. They then set it up to work for example by pressing index finger twice, ring finger once, index finger again. Once they put in that code correctly, the safe door pops open with a spring loaded piston. Personally, I prefer the fingerprint method since it is even faster and much more accurate under emergency conditions.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

This is a typical argument posed by gun control advocates. Why compare Massachusetts to Florida and no other state? Because you cherry picked data that would satisfy your position. Why limit your data from 2007 to 2018. Why not use data from 1997 or 1987? Because you cherry picked data to satisfy your argument. Do you know what that is called? LYING. taking things out of context , givingb11 years in a row of stats is facts, lying ?? To comical to even defend lol

[Number 10 GI]

Actually no, it bestows those rights on a well-regulated Militia.

Are you a member of the Militia? No? Then it's not a "right," for you. Are you wanting to be a member of the Militia? Then great. You pass. If you want to possess a firearm but are not willing to be a member of a well-regulated Militia, willing and able and prepared to fight against a tyrannical government, then you are asking for a privilege and not a constitutional right.

So prove that you a) know the law, b) can see your target with or without glasses. c) know how to use the weapon properly.

Are you saying you shouldn't have to prove any of those three things? If that's the case, let's just arm every man, woman, and child - if they're capable of holding a weapon, then they get to have one. Don't bother teaching them how to use it - because knowing how isn't required by the Constitution. Of course - ammunition is also not a Constitutional right. They can have firearms - but nowhere in the Constitution does it say those firearms can be loaded.

You want to pick nits? I can pick them all day.

Edited because I had a brain-poop and swapped out "well-armed" with what should've been "well-regulated." And by regulated - they meant "controls." It meant that even the constitution agrees that there should be some CONTROLS over how and who and under what circumstances a person gets to enjoy that right to bear arms.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Please do some research. The US Supreme Court ruled in DC vs Heller that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does indeed protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private matters and use within the home in federal enclaves. Militia membership has noting to do with private ownership of guns.

Also at that time "regulated" meant well equipped, not controlled.

Are people required to receive training and demonstrate they can properly raise a child? Bad parenting creates more problems in this country than guns.

Are you required to have completed education on how our government works and to prove it in a test before you can vote? Voting for the wrong person or party has created a lot of serious problems in this country. Need proof, check out the the anarchy and lawlessness being demonstrated in Portland, Chicago, etc., that the governors and mayors completely ignore.

Nope ammunition isn't mentioned in the Constitution but neither is food, clothing, medical care, and on and on so I guess we can't have those items either. Can't have gasoline for our motor vehicles, not in the constitution.

Nit picking is one thing but ridiculous hyperbole only shows the weakness of your argument.

[Number 10 GI]

Judging people who don't do things the way you do, just because they don't do things the same way you do, is rude.

You do it all the time, go back and read your posts.

[Number 10 GI]

So is going through a stop sign without fully stopping no matter where you are!! (I'll raise you one "!") Your point?

What is your point? People break laws all the time, so let's confine everyone to their home so they can't commit unlawful deeds.

[Number 10 GI]

Why? For bragging rights? You can probably only shoot ONE AT A TIME.....

How many pairs of shoes do you own? You can only wear one pair at a time. How many different styles and colors of clothes do you have? All you need is a blue (pick your color) shirt and pants. Seven of each, one for each day of the week, is sufficient to clothe you.
Some people have multiple motor vehicles but they can only operate one at a time.

Your argument is meaningless.

[Number 10 GI]

That's true. But you know what? A baseball bat or a knife doesn't have the ability to maim or kill somebody 100 yards away on the other side of Spanish Springs town square.

Yep, that's true, but I can come up behind someone in a crowd and stab them in the back and no one will notice or hear it. A person could walk down the street in broad daylight holding a knife behind their back and slash another person's jugular as they pass and keep on walking and no one will know what happened until the victim starts spurting blood everywhere.

[Gulfcoast]

One day all will realize how wrong guns are, or any other object kept as a weapon. The only reason to believe that guns are necessary to protect life and/or property is if you believe this life is all there is. If you take another life, or harm another, even in defense of some form, you will have to make amends to the one harmed. Heaven is not what you think it is. And yes, the same is true for war and soldiers, although for most soldiers who were teenagers those who trained them may be just as culpable. Pooh pooh this now, that’s ok. You will eventually see the truth of it.

In your view of the world, the weaker people (children, women, older, disabled, smaller) would be at the complete mercy of the strongest/brawniest.

Guns are an equalizer, like it or not. They are also a good deterrent. You may not own a gun yourself, but the fact that you have the right to own one makes a criminal think twice about coming onto your property to do you or your loved ones harm. Thank God for that.

[mtdjed]

You obviously don’t know what the constitution says and even why it says what it does. The constitution says “we have the right to bear arms.” If you read the Federalists Papers the reason for this is so the people can protect themselves and their property from others including the government if the government doesn’t live up to its responsibilities as defined in the Constitution.

Well said. And the government includes federal, State , county and city. When you have "Child" mayors, city councils, etc who have no skills regarding their oaths to protect the people, you have by the Constitution the right to protect yourself. If you choose not to protect yourself and family, that is your right. However, when the government chooses not to protect you, you have a right to protect yourself.

When Seattle Mayor and Washington Governor abandoned the capital district of Seattle to the mob, there were many citizens living there left to defend themselves. I am glad to know I have that right. That is not to say I relish that opportunity. In fact, I would personally not want to live or visit any area with that type of leadership.

[DDGRoger]

I am not carrying because I have yet to adequately trained. But I pray fellow citizens, properly trained, are carrying when I am sitting in one of our theaters with no back exit from the stadium seating, when we are dancing at a town square, or while we are enjoying a dinner out. Our only hope, if it ever happens, would be someone with skill returing fire. And yes, law enforcement will arrive int time to investigate the scene. Fortunately, there are many Villagers regularly carrying, most of whom are trained and proficient.

[CatskillBill]

FYI, It is illegal in the State of Florida to possess a concealed firearm within 15 feet of a bar (where alcohol is being dispensed). So, if you witness this, by all means dial 911. I will support you. Alcohol and guns do not belong together. Period.

THIS POST ABOVE IS FAKE NEWS
Where did you come up with a bogus 15ft ?
If I carry CONCEALED , how are you to know I have one?


He's the real story;
You are not permitted under Florida law to carry in a bar area that serves alcohol. The law states that "any portion of an establishment that dispenses alcohol.... which is primarily devoted to such purpose".

So it is widely interpreted in Florida to mean that you can carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, as its primary purpose is to dispense food and not alcohol. However, if the restaurant has a bar area you cannot enter that area while carrying a firearm. And you certainly cannot enter a fully licensed bar. That is classed as a misdemeanor with a possible 60 days jail or $500 fine.

[Topspinmo]

That's true. But you know what? A baseball bat or a knife doesn't have the ability to maim or kill somebody 100 yards away on the other side of Spanish Springs town square.


And neither does handgun for home defense.

[EdFNJ]

It's illegal to carry a gun with any kind of mask on. Why would you put a mask on a gun? :duck:

[Topspinmo]

It's illegal to carry a gun with any kind of mask on.

Only if you’re entering 7-11 or gas station :ho:

[EdFNJ]

FYI, It is illegal in the State of Florida to possess a concealed firearm within 15 feet of a bar (where alcohol is being dispensed). So, if you witness this, by all means dial 911.
There are lot's of laws of things you aren't SUPPOSED to do (like driving while drunk). Lot's of people ignore that so why would carrying a gun in your pants while in a bar or restaurant being served alcohol be any different? You likely won't WITNESS IT since it's usually stuck down their pants.

[EdFNJ]

What is your point? People break laws all the time, so let's confine everyone to their home so they can't commit unlawful deeds. :coolsmiley: Exactly what I meant. **NOT** But nice try. ;)

[Kayakguy]

It's okay, I don't have a skateboard any more.

I once borrowed my teen's skateboard to try it on our hilly street. Accelerating to warp speeds, when i fell i kicked the board ahead. Skidding across the street it jumped the curb, where my neighbor was planting flowers at the mailbox. Missed her head by only a foot and careened down their driveway. Her husband picked it up, walked back to me where I was still laying in the street. He handed it to me without a word. I never tried a skateboard again.

[GreySkies]

That's true. But you know what? A baseball bat or a knife doesn't have the ability to maim or kill somebody 100 yards away on the other side of Spanish Springs town square.

Totally false!

ANY object thrown with the correct amount of velocity and accuracy has the potential to maim or kill someone 100 yards away. How about if you stand 100 yards in front of me and let me drive a golf ball in your general direction as validation to your hypothesis?

[EdFNJ]

Why would you put a mask on a gun? :duck:

Only if you’re entering 7-11 or gas station :ho:

Yea maybe, but if you had to use it to protect yourself it would make it useless because it would have a hole in it and powder burns.

[mtdjed]

[QUOTE=OrangeBlossomBaby;1825961]Actually no, it bestows those rights on a well-regulated Militia.

Actually wrong. The rights are given to the people.

“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.”

This amendment has been subject to a lot of discussion over the years but at this time is still interpreted as being the right of the people. There are many arguments saying otherwise. If people want change, they need to encourage those who are the change agents. Change does not get impacted by inferring that opinion is fact.

[Read2know]

The constitution should be the only thing I need to carry, our forefathers new that.
Dear Gary:
The US Constitution does Not say you can carry a gun. The Second Amendment
does Not say you can own a gun. Here is the quote from 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."

When the Second Amendment was written on or about 1789. The USA did not have a standing army and had to depend upon a volunteer's. That is why the Second Amendment states that a, " A well regulated Militia, being necessary ..."
Of course every able bodied man was free to have a gun.
I my humble opinion, our U. S. Supreme Court got it wrong in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. My point is we no longer need a Militia because we have a National Guard and approximately 18,000 Law Enforcement agencies.
It the U.S. now there are 103 people killed every day by guns and and another 210 people which get gunshot injuries. There are to many guns on the street now.
It is my hope that someday our Supreme Court will overturn DC v. Heller.

[mtdjed]

[QUOTE=Read2know;1826433]Dear Gary:
The US Constitution does Not say you can carry a gun. The Second Amendment
does Not say you can own a gun. Here is the quote from 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."

When the Second Amendment was written on or about 1789. The USA did not have a standing army and had to depend upon a volunteer's. That is why the Second Amendment states that a, " A well regulated Militia, being necessary ..."
Of course every able bodied man was free to have a gun.


Again opinion stated as fact. "does Not say". Your argument could be considered a reason for the people to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Also, your conclusion adds requirements not stated -- "able bodied" and "man".

[Number 10 GI]

Dear Gary:
The US Constitution does Not say you can carry a gun. The Second Amendment
does Not say you can own a gun. Here is the quote from 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."

When the Second Amendment was written on or about 1789. The USA did not have a standing army and had to depend upon a volunteer's. That is why the Second Amendment states that a, " A well regulated Militia, being necessary ..."
Of course every able bodied man was free to have a gun.
I my humble opinion, our U. S. Supreme Court got it wrong in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. My point is we no longer need a Militia because we have a National Guard and approximately 18,000 Law Enforcement agencies.
It the U.S. now there are 103 people killed every day by guns and and another 210 people which get gunshot injuries. There are to many guns on the street now.
It is my hope that someday our Supreme Court will overturn DC v. Heller.

Do you not see the word "people"? Doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, it says the people's right will not be infringed.

[Number 10 GI]

Dear Gary:
The US Constitution does Not say you can carry a gun. The Second Amendment
does Not say you can own a gun. Here is the quote from 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."

When the Second Amendment was written on or about 1789. The USA did not have a standing army and had to depend upon a volunteer's. That is why the Second Amendment states that a, " A well regulated Militia, being necessary ..."
Of course every able bodied man was free to have a gun.
I my humble opinion, our U. S. Supreme Court got it wrong in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. My point is we no longer need a Militia because we have a National Guard and approximately 18,000 Law Enforcement agencies.
It the U.S. now there are 103 people killed every day by guns and and another 210 people which get gunshot injuries. There are to many guns on the street now.
It is my hope that someday our Supreme Court will overturn DC v. Heller.

Wrong on the standing army. The Congress of the Confederation established the United States Army on 3 Jun 1784.

[Taltarzac725]

Had a bunch of rifles and shotguns acquired while growing up in Reno, Nevada but stopped using these by 1982. Sold most of these to a Santa Rosa, CA pawn shop in 1994 or thereabouts to get money to get many snail mail letters out about my work to get libraries of all kinds in the US and elsewhere involved in creating a nexus for survivors/victims of crimes. Also sold art books to Santa Rosa, CA used book stores for the same reason.

This project of mine was brought about by experiences I had in Reno, Nevada while dealing with the 2-24-1976 murder of Michelle Mitchell near the University of Nevada, Reno campus. 2-24 is my birthday and Michelle's mother was my Earl Wooster HS English teacher at that time. The Mitchell family had given me a very small Memorial Scholarship in 1976-1977 in Michelle's name. She had been murdered with a knife by a person that was not "caught" until 1979. And it turned out they got the wrong person back in 1979 due to facts that came to light in 2014.They did identify the most likely murderer in 2014 which turned out to be a serial killer who had preyed on women in the SF Bay area in early 1976.

Bad people use all kinds of weapons-- knives, bombs, cars, bats, hammers, etc.

Do have a problem with the rate of fire coming from some firearms though. These should only be in the hands of the military.

[Number 10 GI]

I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand that if someone wants something illegal there is a criminal organization that will provide it to them. Heroin, cocaine, etc., are readily available in the smallest towns in the country. You can also purchase firearms illegally nearly everywhere so how would banning guns work????? Tons of drugs are smuggled into this country every year so why couldn't guns be smuggled in? The person needing a gun to commit a crime will always be able to get one, the only ones that will comply with a ban are the honest citizens. It only takes a little bit of logical thought to understand.

[DeanFL]

.
.
I'm the OP.

1. Must say quite surprised of the poll results so far. 81% OWN or WOULD OWN a firearm. I expected that % to be about 65% or so. Not a scientic poll of course, but still...

2. Personally I am in the "WouldOwn" camp. Never owned a firearm - no need in the past as to where we lived and concerns about safety travelling and at home etc. But IF this changed - would not be an issue to go to Shooters World, purchase, train, etc etc.

3. This said, I DID purchase a self defense alternative last week. I desire to feel safer in our car, in case 'trouble develops'. Bought a handheld Pepper Spray container to keep in the car door pocket JUST IN CASE. Will have this as a "Better safe than sorry" tool.

SABRE RED Crossfire Pepper Gel Spray with Belt Clip – 360-Degree Deployment, Maximum Police Strength Pepper Gel with Quick Access Flip Top, 18-foot (5.5 m) Range, 18 Bursts – Gel is Safer

Robot Check (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07GVSHG61/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

[Mumbles]

[/COLOR][/I][/B]What is YOUR personal position on OWNING A FIREARM?[/SIZE]

.[/QUOTE]

I lived in NH in the largest city up there when I was a young'un. I had to fight hard to get Mom to let me buy a .22 Winchester for target practice. Dad was OK with it. But, as you may know, NH was/is not an open carry or ANY carry state. I wasn't interested in the least to buy and wear a handgun anyway. Still won't do it. My observation is that a) there are many, many nut cases around us; b)most carriers of handguns in any state, except, perhaps Texas, do not take regular courses in sharp shooting, nor do they go out WEEKLY to target practice. ( if they had to face another deadly weapon say, about 30 - 50+ feet away, it would be a miracle if they were able to actually kill the opponent.) And c) I do not feel at all threatened by anybody around me at any time, and can only go by stats that say I have a hugely better chance of living if I DON'T carry.

[Garwood1]

Then by all means go , the biggest reason we have the United States was the patriots in 1776 had their weapons and fought the tyranny and if you want to leave feel free to go but me I’m an ancestor of those that bravely fought for freedom

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Then by all means go , the biggest reason we have the United States was the patriots in 1776 had their weapons and fought the tyranny and if you want to leave feel free to go but me I’m an ancestor of those that bravely fought for freedom

They fought against tyranny of an oppressive government (Britain). This country was settled by Europeans long before that though.

Meanwhile, you can all relax and not worry about guns anymore. Just buy a few cans of soup!

[Tommyc6]

[/COLOR][/I][/B]What is YOUR personal position on OWNING A FIREARM?[/SIZE]

.

I lived in NH in the largest city up there when I was a young'un. I had to fight hard to get Mom to let me buy a .22 Winchester for target practice. Dad was OK with it. But, as you may know, NH was/is not an open carry or ANY carry state. I wasn't interested in the least to buy and wear a handgun anyway. Still won't do it. My observation is that a) there are many, many nut cases around us; b)most carriers of handguns in any state, except, perhaps Texas, do not take regular courses in sharp shooting, nor do they go out WEEKLY to target practice. ( if they had to face another deadly weapon say, about 30 - 50+ feet away, it would be a miracle if they were able to actually kill the opponent.) And c) I do not feel at all threatened by anybody around me at any time, and can only go by stats that say I have a hugely better chance of living if I DON'T carry.[/QUOTE]
NH is an open carry state with I believe no license or permit needed. NH does allow concealed carry with permit.

[Dahabs]

While I can appreciate your sentiment, a gun stored and locked in a safe is completely useless. The Bad Guy isn't going to give you time to unlock the safe. No different than carrying a gun with no ammo. Useless.

How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/)

I just don't get it. Particularly when it comes to assault rifles. What use do these types of weapons have other than to kill more people quicker. Yet the defenders of the 2nd amendment will not contemplate banning these.

In general if you take guns out of the equation, the murder rate goes right down. Is American society so much more violent than other developed nations that a majority of its citizens require guns for self protection?

[sail33or]

Little know historical fact: In uncovered WW2 Japanese documents the Japanese studied attacking the West Coast of the US. One of the reasons listed "not" to do this was the understanding that Texas had 1 million hunters with deer rifles.

[Fredster]

How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/)

I just don't get it. Particularly when it comes to assault rifles. What use do these types of weapons have other than to kill more people quicker. Yet the defenders of the 2nd amendment will not contemplate banning these.

In general if you take guns out of the equation, the murder rate goes right down. Is American society so much more violent than other developed nations that a majority of its citizens require guns for self protection?

Could you please explain what an assault rifle is?

[EdFNJ]

Could you please explain what an assault rifle is?

Assault rifle | Definition of Assault rifle at Dictionary.com (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assault-rifle?s=t)

assault rifle
noun
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

[EdFNJ]

Little know historical fact: In uncovered WW2 Japanese documents the Japanese studied attacking the West Coast of the US. One of the reasons listed "not" to do this was the understanding that Texas had 1 million hunters with deer rifles. Please show where this "little known fact" can be found (other than NRA.COM).

[dewilson58]

Please show where this "little known fact" can be found (other than NRA.COM).


Discussed, not proven:
Professor James Holmes (https://usnwc.edu/Faculty-and-Departments/Directory/James-R-Holmes), chair of maritime strategy and at the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island, told us it’s plausible that private gun ownership was part of Japan’s calculus, but not the dominant factor.

[John41]

The first step every dictator takes in to disarm the people. Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership but very low violence. It’s considered patriotic to own a gun.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Little know historical fact: In uncovered WW2 Japanese documents the Japanese studied attacking the West Coast of the US. One of the reasons listed "not" to do this was the understanding that Texas had 1 million hunters with deer rifles.

What an astoundingly strange reason to not attack the west coast. Texas isn't on the west coast. It doesn't even HAVE a west coast. Most of Texas is surrounded by land. From El Paso (the westernmost area of the state) to San Diego (the closest major coastal town as the crow flies, is over 700 miles away.

[mydavid]

The trouble is most people who have guns if confronted, would end up shooting themselves or a bystander before hitting the bad guy. Just look at the cops, they train with their gun all the time and still when confronted, many of their shots miss the target. and if they were good shooters they would be able to wound and arrest instead of kill to apprehend.

[billethkid]

The trouble is most people who have guns if confronted, would end up shooting themselves or a bystander before hitting the bad guy. Just look at the cops, they train with their gun all the time and still when confronted, many of their shots miss the target. and if they were good shooters they would be able to wound and arrest instead of kill to apprehend.

BS!!
Total uninformed gun catharsis.

[GreySkies]

In general if you take guns out of the equation, the murder rate goes right down. Is American society so much more violent than other developed nations that a majority of its citizens require guns for self protection?

Really, care to provide some statistical facts to backup that obvious "assumption"?

:shocked:

[Kenswing]

Assault rifle | Definition of Assault rifle at Dictionary.com (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assault-rifle?s=t)

assault rifle
noun
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
Funny how the definition keeps getting more broad. First it's a selective fire military rifle. Now it can be a non military weapon "modeled" on the military "Assault Rifle". Then goes on to say it's "modified" to allow only semiautomatic fire. It's not modified at all. It's specifically designed for semiautomatic fire ONLY.

Next the definition of "Assault Rifle" will be anything that fires semi-automatically.

[Number 10 GI]

The trouble is most people who have guns if confronted, would end up shooting themselves or a bystander before hitting the bad guy. Just look at the cops, they train with their gun all the time and still when confronted, many of their shots miss the target. and if they were good shooters they would be able to wound and arrest instead of kill to apprehend.

Most police officers only qualify with their weapon annually. Many of them only practice before annual qualification so as to be able to pass. Most police departments do require officers to practice due to budget restraints. No money for ammo and wages for the time training.
Do you know how hard it is to "wound" someone especially if they are moving? You know that if you hit a person in the femoral artery in the leg they will bleed out in a matter of minutes so how is a cop supposed to miss the artery? A wounded armed criminal can still kill you, that is why police are trained to shoot until the threat is ended.
It's real simple and even a caveman can understand, comply with the police's orders and you won't get shot.