BetterMakeWay

Dranged what's the hand gesture suppose to mean?

iversonm

Despite my better judgement, I've gotta chime in.

You worded the question as an absolute right to bear arms. On that basis, your assertion could include no restrictions on ownership for felons, children, the mentally ill, etc.

Furthermore, it would imply no restrictions on the type and form of said arms. Hence, I would be well within my rights to fill my house with RPGs, surface to air missiles, and perhaps a 105mm howitzer for special occasions. (I *need* the proper sound effects when I play Tchaikovsky.)

Thus, while I'm a responsible owner of a few shotguns, I can't answer "yes" to your survey.

DRANGED

"The Electric Shocker" For the girl who has everything.

Sorry guys.

I'm staying out of this gun discussion. Good luck

boltoa

The straightforward wording of the question was fairly deliberate, otherwise it would go like this:
1. Yes. No questions
2. Yes, unless you have a conviction for an armed offence
3. Yes, unless you have a conviction for any violent offence
4. Yes, but only hunting weapons
5. Yes, but you can't carry them around with you
6. Yes, but only after a battery of psychological tests to make sure you are stable
7. Yes, but you need to keep your weapon at a licenced gun club or hunting base
8. Yes, but only if you are a law enforcement officer
etc etc etc.

There are probably as many answers as there are people. I doubt there's even one single most evangelical NRA member who thinks absolutely anyone should be able to walk into a gun shop and walk out with a grenade launcher with no checks whatsoever. There's always going to be some restrictions. So I'm hoping that people will answer based on boiling down their opinion to the basic argument - is it a personal freedom that shouldn't be taken away except for very obvious reasons, or does the negatives of widespread gun ownership outweigh the benefits? And saying that, I'd trying my hardest not to push opinion one way or the other, even though my personal views are probably fairly obvious

zimguy

I dont subscribe to this. The wrong kind of person (criminal, irresponsible, inexperienced etc etc etc) with the weapon unfortunately decides other peoples destiny. My time in law enforcement (not in the UK) hammered home this point to me.

I voted no.

Whilst I support the argument of firearm ownership, I dont support it being an absolute right.

My point is that some countries unfortunately have the balance wrong. More training, supervision and tests are mandated when wanting to get behind the wheel of a car then get behind the trigger of a firearm.

Ownership determined by skills-based applications and regular re-assessment is the answer.......not just any old Tom, Dick or Harry merely because it is their "right"

/me gets off my soapbox