[Ken H]

Philosophically, I think it is unjust for the state to remove the means to defend oneself. I'm not a fan of prior restraint in general. Pragmatically, we have a system of government in which power is delegated to the state via a constitution. If the people of the state delegate authority to disarm its citizens then it is legally legitimate for the state to do so.

Isn't a government violating a fundamental right by removing your means of defending yourself and your family?

We usually react to this philosophic/pragmatic disparity by saying, "I don't agree with the law, but that's the law." We then go about changing that law in the political arena.

If your State outlawed gun ownership, would you turn in your firearms?

[tpaine]

"If your State outlawed gun ownership, would you turn in your firearms?"


Could be an interesting answer, seeing that database lives in CA, and they have indeed "outlawed" certain types of guns.

Did you turn in any 'assault weapons', db? -- More to the point, do you think anyone in our fair State did?

[Database]

Isn't a government violating a fundamental right by removing your means of defending yourself and your family?

Government is certainly infringing when it removes a means of self defense. But governments are infringement machines, which is why we want them to be limited in scope.

If your State outlawed gun ownership, would you turn in your firearms?

I'll decline to answer this one on the grounds that the issue if civil disobedience is getting a bit far from the original issue of Federalism (;^)