Results: You, Politicians, Guns, Etc.
Published on 10/23/2023
QUESTIONS
GO to COMMENTS
Comments
1.
1.
Are you of an opinion that private citizens' purchase of firearms for their protection should, counter to the u.S. constitutions's second amendment, be strictly regulated, if not altogether disallowed?
Yes
31%
711 votes
Unsure
20%
469 votes
No
28%
634 votes
I'm Canadian and would rather not answer.
21%
486 votes
2.
2.
If you answered Yes to the previous question, would you require that the politicians who vote to enact restrictions on private citizens' constitutional right to own firearms or other wise endorse such legislation should themselves be deprived of gun ownership for personal protection and have that deprivation extend to any armed security detail they might otherwise be afforded in their capacity as office holders?
Yes
26%
587 votes
Undecided
19%
429 votes
No
13%
308 votes
See previous bit about being Canadian
15%
350 votes
Not Applicable
27%
626 votes
3.
3.
If you answered No to the previous question, are you prepared to defend how disallowing private citizens to enjoy protection of their lives, loved ones and property via gun ownership is, to your reckoning, consistent with the idea that all citizens, including politicians (and, by extension, other government employees, perhaps especially those appointed or hired by elected officials) are, or should be, equal under the law?
Yes
20%
464 votes
Uncommitted
17%
402 votes
No
10%
221 votes
Canadian, yadda x 3...!
17%
396 votes
Not Applicable
36%
817 votes
4.
4.
If you remain supportive of the idea of limiting or banning private citizens from owning guns for protection, which of the following scenarios concerns you more?
Only criminals and military personnel (and other government employees?) being allowed to possess guns, thus depriving private citizenry from protecting themselves, their loves ones and property with equal or overwhelming force against crimes against them and/or the predatory actions of a tyrannical government (the latter being the reason the U.S. constitution affirms--NOT "gives"--the right to protect oneself with firearms)
10%
236 votes
Criminals and others who would seek to cause harm and havoc employing other means--such as knives, automobiles, etc.--to conduct their misdeeds...and government being unafraid to do to citizens however it sees fit without restraint, as there's no fear of resistance to it
7%
159 votes
Both about equally
15%
335 votes
Neither
16%
358 votes
Though there's no allowance for Canadians in the answer options, I wish there were.
13%
310 votes
Not Applicable
39%
902 votes
5.
5.
Which of the following do you value more?:
Security, or the appearance thereof, with a curtailment of rights
8%
185 votes
Liberty, however it may be messy at times and require vigilance to maintain, and the full assortment of rights given by God (or nature, if one insists) to free people not falling prey to diminution
18%
425 votes
I don't see why both of the above can't be employed simultaneously (and I may comment on how that could be)
21%
494 votes
Uncertain
15%
342 votes
Not Applicable
37%
854 votes
COMMENTS