Age of anti-gun/anti-RKBA DU'ers here.

[-..__...]

With all this discussion of new and more strict gun control laws, I'm curious if there's an age/generational gap or opinion regarding the 2nd amendment.

Disregard sex, race, economic or geographical (rural or urban), background.

I ask this because my suspicion is that age is a significant factor for those in favor of more gun control (yeah... I'll wager that this question has been asked, researched, and studied by special interest groups and the DOJ, but bear with me).

The basic question is...

"Current federal gun control laws are insufficient and more laws need to be either enacted or strengthened".

Federal laws = bans on semi-automatic firearms, bans on high capacity magazines, bans on private sales of firearms (the "gun show loophole"), support of firearms registration and/or licensing of gun owners, enhanced background checks/database to include the mentally impaired.

Decide as you will, but keep it to your basic feelings that the government is doing enough or not enough.


(This is not a scientific poll)

[hlthe2b]

1. acronym overload: what is RKBA?

[LeftyMom]

3. "right to keep and bear arms" They always leave off the well-regulated militia qualifier

so they can pretend it's an individual right that applies to them.

[hlthe2b]

6. LOL...

great for a bumper sticker, I guess...

[-..__...]

9. They always leave off...

"the being necessary to the security of a free State" part.

Please... someone remind me of this, isn't the National Guard (as some of you claim), our State militias?

Then WTF are our state militias doing in Iraq?

Dare I ask... who controls the "militia"?

Who is the Commander in Chief of the National Guard?

Who trains and equips them?

Certainly not the States.

Can't blame it on you know who (Congress and the SCOTUS gave the you know whose the authority).



Which part are you more comfortable with?

"being necessary to the security of a free State"...

or...

"the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Be careful now... this is a trick question.

Feel better now?

[beevul]

10. One does not put a qualifier on rights of the people...

One does not put a qualifier on rights of the people, in a document that is a list of restrictions on governmental power meant to SAFEGUARD the rights of the people.

Not in this day and age, and especially not when the BOR was written.


Sorry.

[LeftyMom]

2. Old enough to vote.

beyond that it doesn't matter.

[backwoodsbob]

4. rkba...right to keep and bear arms

B-)

[LeftyMom]

5. I think you meant to reply upthread?

[StClone]

7. Here's a little thing to contemplate

The Constitution defines Rights; however, things NOT defined as Rights are protected by transference such as Right to Free Speech should include talking on a Cell Phone. Cell Phone use is a danger while driving and therefore can be limited. But the Right to an "Unregulated Militia" shall be less infringed according to Modern "My cold dead hands" believers. I have a hard time with stuff like this. I think a Cell Phone probably saves more lives and causes far fewer deaths by accident than guns of all stripes (outside of war).

P.S. I have shot and killed more living things than I would guess 99.9% of the gun owners on this board.

[Dimensio0]

12. I believe that you have confused the issue.

A ban on utilizing a cellular phone when operating an automobile can be argued as not an infringement upon the First Amendment because it is not targeted at anything that is said during the conversation. In places that have enacted such bans, individuals are legally liable for the act of operating the cellular phone while simultaneously operating the automobile, regardless of the context of the conversation. Moreover, that individual may have the same conversation on a cellular phone while not operating a motor vehicle and be in full compliance with the law. As such, the law is not restricting speech itself, but rather aimed -- so proponents of such laws say -- at preventing an activity that is inherently dangerous to others; the activity being operating a cellular phone while operating a motor vehicle, with the fact that speech is transmitted during the act being incidental.

Moreover, your reference to a "militia" is a red herring. The Second Amendment names a militia only in its justification in prohibiting government action. The Amendment specifically prohibits the government from infringing upon the poeple's right to keep and bear arms. An analogy with a ban on cell phone usage in an automobile applicable to Second Amendment issues would be a ban on the unsafe usage of a firearm, such as carrying the firearm in the hand when in public, rather than keeping the firearm holstered (with specific exceptions for individuals whose circumstances at the time justify the brandishing of the firearm). In this way, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed, as individuals would still be allowed to keep and bear arms.

It is also important to note that the "right" mentioned in the Second Amendment is said to belong to "the people". There has been some dispute as to whether "the people" in this context refers to all individuals or to a collective subset of individuals. Claiming the latter interpretation is legally dangerous, however. As a legal document, the Constitution must use specific phrasing that does not change from one clause to another. If "the people" in the Second Amendment does not refer to all individual citizens, then "the people" in the First, Fourth and Ninth amendments, as well as any other part of the Constitution, does not refere to all individual citizens either.

[Sanctified]

13. The Constitution was written defining the role of Government not the Rights of the People.

Furthermore your cell phone analogy does not hold water, if you get busted for driving while talking on a cell phone you can lose your privilege to drive not lose your privilege to talk on your cell phone.

[aikoaiko]

8. Check your results with a previous poll asking for the ages of DUers

As I recall, a majority of folks are over 55 here.

[TalkingDog]

11. I voted even though I own guns (yes plural)

I don't think the government does enough to ensure, oh, hell, a lot of things about guns.

I "inherited" 2 guns from my mother's estate. She didn't leave them to me, but my sister nor my nephew wanted them. I live near a popular fishing spot on a lake and between the junk food and the bait, we have more than enough skunks, racoons and stray dogs that I have real (and statistically valid) concerns about my 4 critters mixing it up with a rabid and/or viscious animal.

Now, when I took the guns, I didn't have to notify anybody, tell anybody or do anything. If I want to use them at any time I can. And as long as I don't kill specific animals out of season (deer, turkeys, doves, etc) or, theoretically, shoot at humans, I can go out and kill things to my hearts content.

Imagine trying the equivalent activities with a car.

I don't have a license, registration, insurance, yet in this parallel, I can hop in this uninspected car and go for a drive anywhere, take any other person along for a ride and so on.

I am not anti-gun any more than I am anti-car or anti-medical liscense or anti-dental degree. If I wanted to fish, I'd have to apply for permission. If I wanted to cut or dye hair I'd have to take course work, test and get a license. Hair.....Human Hair......

But to get a gun and use it I just have to be the first to call "dibs"?

Something is wrong with this picture..... I think it might be called money.

[Der Blaue Engel]

14. So if I disagree with your interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms

I'm automatically against it (and thereby, also anti-constitution). I can't imagine who is actually voting in your poll.