Gun Control

[tkcomer]

With the rash of shootings the country has seen lately, one thing I have noticed is that the Dems haven't been hollering to ban this or that. Yes, there are still the same "bans" trying to get through congress as usual, quietly, but I don't see the ruckus I did in the past. The fact they are so quiet worries me. It used to be the gun control groups would be all over TV and in the paper wanting to ban something. But even they seem to be laying low. They have to be up to something. I've always thought, when it comes to the amendments, lose the second, and the rest will fall. Any thoughts on what's going on? I know the gun grabbers haven't given up, but where are they?

[Bengals_Mama]

I am in the middle on this issue, but I have noticed the same thing. I believe we have the right to own guns, but not so sure about the machine guns... not sure what you would do with those unless you're in the military, or the militia..lol I'm sure my husband would like to have one just for the heck of it though. I would say they dropped the issue because they noticed how big of an impact the NRA had on the last Presidential Election. I don't personally think you should vote for any candidate based on the opinion of any certain group, but that it should be your OWN opinion. I hope we can keep our guns, I feel so much safer with them. I am neither Republican, or Democrat..but I tend to side with Republicans on moral issues, and Dems on Economic issues.

[Brian K Beckett]

I dont have an educated therey on this but I always think if any political party does take away guns it would be the republicans. I know that sounds strange. I do remember hearing after Virginia Tech shooting the first reports that I had herd was if they would honor concealed weapons on campus then maybe that guy might have been stopped sooner.

[tkcomer]

Machine gun? People buy them just for the pure fun of it. About like someone buying a half million dollar super car. Or a 180 MPH bike. Do you need it? No, but it sure is fun. I can remember when the gun control groups were all over TV trying to ban "sniper rifles". Who should have one of those? Well, that definition took out any gun with a scope on it, which is the majority of hunting rifles. As far as morals go, the Republicans have proven to be the worst. Say one thing, do another. They're famous for reversing themselves once in office. I've got to give the Dems credit on that one. Like it or not, you usually know where they stand. But their silence on this issue worries me. They're generally known as the gun control party.

[kdown]

I believe we have the right to own guns, but not so sure about the machine guns I agree. Banning guns would NEVER work.

[ponto]

The Second Amendment states: "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."

Until such time as we each have a personal armed government employee providing around the clock security, I think we should keep our guns. You never know when an armed intruder on a four wheeler might drive up to your door.

[Chuck]

The last ban, "The Brady Bill", only stopped law abiding citizens from getting the guns they want to collect. The ban did nothing to stop Violent crimes, Gang Shootings or School Shootings.

George Washington used illegal guns to help liberate this Country.

[TheMan]

Gun Control= Hitting what you are shooting at.

[Brian K Beckett]

The last ban, "The Brady Bill", only stopped law abiding citizens from getting the guns they want to collect. The ban did nothing to stop Violent crimes, Gang Shootings or School Shootings.

George Washington used illegal guns to help liberate this Country.


The Second Amendment states: "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."


I also think that one of the reasons that the second amendment was written was not only to protect yourself from theives and murderers but also to protect your rights and if necessary give a way to the people to (liberate) themselves from a government that doesent do what its people want. And no I am not saying we should overthrow the government but I do think our forefathers wanted us to have the option if necessary.


As far as owning macheine guns I wish I had one. I could only imagine how much fun it would be to shoot one. The way I see it if people are going to kill people it doesent matter what kind of gun they use a muzzle loader is just as deadly as a macheine gun and yes it is true that a person could kill more with the macheine gun then the muzzle loader.

As far as gun control I do support I do support not allowing fellons or people with mental history. I just would like to know how the guy in the most recent shooting in Illinoise was able to purchase a gun after having a history of mental illness?

[Chuck]

We are on the same page.

There are enough laws on the books to be able to control this issue. New laws and bans will only create a situation that is worse.

The guy in Illinois did not slip through the cracks. The current laws are not enforceable by local agencies and the reporting by health officials is hampered by HIPA.

What is needed is fine tuning of the existing laws to allow local agencies to regulate gun sales by having this HIPA info on file for people with mental illness.

Also if the person above had ownership of guns prior to a diagnoses of a mental illness local law enforcement needs to be made aware of the change.

HIPA says NO! and the ATF wants full control over this. I can speculate on the reasons but that opens up the room for the Conspiracy Theory and would also speculate that Federal Agencies really have little to no trust in smaller City agencies.

[ponto]

The current federal government makes a great case for state's rights.

I think the word "Militia" was written to mean a state based army.

Can you imagine our Commonwealth if laws were not tied to federal dollars?

Seat belt laws, drunk driving alcohol DUI levels, to name a couple.

[tkcomer]

I agree with what everyone is saying, it's just that the gun banners seem awfully quiet. I know they haven't gone away. It used to be that candidates for office would state their intentions to ban this or that to reduce crime. Now, nothing. What I fear is, candidates keeping their ban ideas a secret until enough get into office to pass an actual ban. Even though we have true gun banners in office and the people of those states keep putting them back in office. Let's face it, a huge section of the population want these bans. A large outcry might even get pro gunners to switch their vote if they thought their seat was in jeopardy.

[kyreader]

I would like to meet the person who coined the phrase "gun control". There is no way that gun control could be enforced. There are already millions of guns in homes across the country. We canot control drugs on our streets, we cannot prevent children from drinking alcohol. If gun control laws were placed into effect, how would they be controled? The only thing that a gun control law would do is leave honest citizens of the community defensles. Criminals would still have their guns and drugs.
You can not blame the unfortunate rash of ruthless shootings at in public places on guns, that is just rediculous. That is the same as blaming a death due to drinking and driving on cars. How about "car control". I think that there are many other factors involved in public shootings.
I think that people need to be better educated in the use of guns. I think that a lot of people that are in favor of gun control do not understand guns and the purpose of them. Guns have more good uses than bad, and a few very bad incidents should not be an excuse to rip away the constitutional rights of american citizens.

[Brian K Beckett]

I agree ky reader thats like when some states require permits for gun ownership. I cant imagine a person who is about to commit mass homicide saying " wait a min I better not kill all these people today I dont have my permit"

[Jeremy]

I'm not opposed to people having guns. I'm just opposed to people using them on other people. People are stupid and not to be trusted :)

Strictly speaking the wording: 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. does not mean that anyone and everyone can own a gun. That's only an interpretation, one that I feel is an incorrect interpretation. It's not phrases out of context. It's a complete sentence. The sentence not only spells out law, but the intent of the law. The intent is clearly to provide for an armed Militia for the purpose of securing a free State. The third section that everyone focuses on is only one a part of that complete thought. The "people" here refers to the Militia.

To answer tkcomer's question about why gun control advocates are silent, they're probably waiting for the Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller where the above interpretation was argued. That decision is to be determined later this year.

At least one judge in the lower courts agreed with the above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._District_of_Columbia#Summary_of_dissent

[Brian K Beckett]

I'm not opposed to people having guns. I'm just opposed to people using them on other people. People are stupid and not to be trusted :)

Strictly speaking the wording: 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. does not mean that anyone and everyone can own a gun. That's only an interpretation, one that I feel is an incorrect interpretation. It's not phrases out of context. It's a complete sentence. The sentence not only spells out law, but the intent of the law. The intent is clearly to provide for an armed Militia for the purpose of securing a free State. The third section that everyone focuses on is only one a part of that complete thought. The "people" here refers to the Militia.



Ad yes TK I do find it strange with what has happend with the recent rash of shooting that no candidate has been pushing the issue either way.

To answer tkcomer's question about why gun control advocates are silent, they're probably waiting for the Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller where the above interpretation was argued. That decision is to be determined later this year.

At least one judge in the lower courts agreed with the above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._District_of_Columbia#Summary_of_dissent


I dont think they are referring to people as being militia. Or the militia being a government controlled militia. At the time that they wrote the ammendments it was all about freedome and of the people for the people by the people. I think if they wanted it to read of the militia for the militia by the militia then they would have spelled out militia not people. I think the reason the did include the militia clause was to also include persons forming a militia as a right to assemble but with guns.

[tkcomer]

I agree the D.C.vsHeller has everyone on hold right now, but the thing is, it's been kinda quiet on the federal level for several years. Besides, if I have this right, that decision will only apply to D.C. Of course the ruling would be used to challenge laws elsewhere. The antis seem to have dropped back to the state level with willy nilly laws in different states. Kind of a divide and conquer strategy. The current strategy seems to be the ban of lead in bullets. Lead = bad. Not good for the environment. Take the lead out....no bullets. Or bullets too expensive to shoot. It would also take out the line of firearms that has frustrated them. Black powder. To say they wanted to ban black powder guns would be to announce their true intent. To ban all guns, not the "common sense" laws they preach.

[Jeremy]

I dont think they are referring to people as being militia. Or the militia being a government controlled militia. At the time that they wrote the ammendments it was all about freedome and of the people for the people by the people. I think if they wanted it to read of the militia for the militia by the militia then they would have spelled out militia not people. I think the reason the did include the militia clause was to also include persons forming a militia as a right to assemble but with guns.

The militia was never government controlled. A militia is a citizen's army "the people" in contrast to the government's army:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

The Patriots were militia. That's what they wanted to ensure, that the militia wasn't disarmed and could defend ordinary people from the government, similar to what you said, but specifically covering "the people" part of the complete amendment.

Note the writing style in the Bill of Rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Text_of_the_Bill_of_R ights

They use "and" and "or" to properly separate independent things. On the Second Amendment they didn't say "militia and/or the people". They equated the two as being the same thing: a citizen's army.

[drago]

Well I for one would never let anyone take away my guns...I need them for when the zombies attack.

[Chuck]

You miss one vital understand about intent. The Intent of a law, article or a person(s) is always base from circumstances and events surrounding them at the time.

When these people formed and joined the original Militia, later known as the 1st Continental Army, many did not own guns. It was do to restriction imposed at the time by England. The people that started this revolution where Farmers, Merchants, Just "The People".

With interpretation and translation from the early American language and taking in their intent for circumstances surrounding events of that era, the Second Amendment would be read like this:

"If, since or Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; then the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It does not give the Right for a Militia to keep and bear arms only the people,

[kdown]

You might want to keep your eye on this.........

On November 20, 2007, the United States Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, case no. 07-290. [111] The question the Supreme Court justices posed is whether the provisions of the D.C. statute “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”[112]

[tkcomer]

The Heller case is an important one. It will decide if an individual has a right to own a gun. I'm not a big fan of the Supreme Court. They rarely uphold individual rights. As of now, states still have a say on what goes on inside their borders. With some passing ever tighter restrictions and some loosening them. And like I said earlier, the states with tight restrictions? The people keep putting those politicians back in office, so the voters must like what they do. It's the voters that scare me more than the politicians. And if you want to see a real tug of war, look no further than the police. In a lot of states and big cities, the leadership is for more gun control while the rank and file are against it. And don't tell me it's because they are afraid we will do "their" job and put them out work.

[Jeremy]

You miss one vital understand about intent. The Intent of a law, article or a person(s) is always base from circumstances and events surrounding them at the time.

In part. Original intent is always a huge part of deciding what the law means today. That's what the Supreme Court is deciding now.

I think modernizing the wording would actually read like:

"A armed and organized citizen's army, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

[kdown]

Way to simple Jeremy. Not legal sounding enough......LOL
The word State. Does that mean each state or should the word be Nation or Republic or " These United States "

[frankie 2 times]

to me, essentially, the 2nd amendment is to ensure that citizens can protect themselves from a corrupt government.

the founding fathers didn't even trust the government they were helping create to be on the up and up.

only problem with this theory/amendment is, of course, the government has our kids as soldiers,
and they would be charged with the task of wiping out the enemy .... both foreign and domestic.

kind of a clusterf@#k when ya think about it.

[Brian K Beckett]

According to the poll a couple of people think that all guns should be benned I would like to know why they think this???

[tkcomer]

A LOT of people don't like guns, so they want them banned. Who needs an AK-47 to hunt wabbits? The politicians don't come up with ban ideas unless a segment of the population wants it. Even if they hate guns, they'll not bring up a ban if they think the voters would throw them out for it. A lot of people claim one of the reasons Al Gore lost was because the pro gunners came out in force and voted for Bush. And I know a lot of people that will not vote for Hillary because her husband (What was his name?) signed the Assault Weapons Ban back in '94. That's what's scaring me. I think the Dems are taking cues from the 'Pubs. Say one thing, or avoid the subject, then do another once in office. In other words, they're laying low until there is enough of 'em. Active gun owners are a minority. Notice I say active. They can't throw an election, but can tip it if it is close. But too many voters in too many states like the anti gun politicians. They keep getting elected by wide margins. Because they think it reduces crime. And let's not forget, to protect the children.

[Jeremy]

Way to simple Jeremy. Not legal sounding enough......LOL
The word State. Does that mean each state or should the word be Nation or Republic or " These United States "

That might need some updating too, but I think State is still used, like in "Enemy of the State".

According to the poll a couple of people think that all guns should be benned I would like to know why they think this???

I don't personally think guns should be banned. If it were an option, I'd vote for psychological screening before a gun is purchased. Currently it's seen as a Constitutional right to own a gun, so there's not much involved in getting one. I'd also vote for it to be required that a sign be posted conspicuously if you have a gun in your home, or for the gun to be viewable at all times if you're carrying one. Just simple gun -control-. Viewed as a right, there's little control at play.

Upon futher thought, I'd also require guns to be locked away when not in your immediate possession and prevent loaning the gun to unlicensed users. Most gun crimes, and certainly all guns at schools, are stolen or borrowed guns. There needs to be better regulation on preventing guns from being stolen. It's already technologically possible to track everyday items by GPS. They make GPS trackers very small and convenient. It would be unpopular, but I would require every working gun to have a tracking device or be rendered unusable. Ones without tracking devices that are still usable would be considered illegal. This wouldn't eradicate the problem, but it'd make it that much more difficult for Johnny to bring a gun to school.

[tkcomer]

GPS? Johnny would still take the gun to school, it's just that after the fact, you could trace his path back to the house. I kinda like the sign idea. Thieves would skip that house and hit the ones that didn't have 'em. Psychological screening? That's the sad part. A lot of these individuals have been screened. It just wasn't reported to the proper authorities of their "difficulties" or those purchases would have been stopped. I don't have kids but I can't understand why they are so different today. But then again, back when I was a freshman in high school, a boy in my homeroom killed his dad. Guns were still available to most of us, but we didn't "go off" when we didn't get our way. And that was back in the day when "shoot 'em ups" were on TV all the time. I don't think more laws will help. Other countries have tried it and crime went up. The innocents were the only ones that suffered. That's what confuses me. Why do so many want more laws when we have proof from other countries staring us in the face it doesn't work?

[John Deere "B"]

According to the poll a couple of people think that all guns should be benned I would like to know why they think this???

I find it very disturbing that 3 people in this vote pole think that all guns should be banned. Wonder what kind of a weapon they would use on someone that was trying to break into their homes? Maybe they would use a fly swatter or a broom.

[tbplayer]

I dont have an educated therey on this but I always think if any political party does take away guns it would be the republicans. I know that sounds strange. I do remember hearing after Virginia Tech shooting the first reports that I had herd was if they would honor concealed weapons on campus then maybe that guy might have been stopped sooner.


the republicans wanting to ban guns? hardly think that is even close to fact. If the dem's are being quiet about it, is because they dont want to rock the boat so they may actually win an election (God help us)

[tkcomer]

Here's an interesting thing that just popped up. Montana says that if the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the individual right to bear arms, it would be in violation of Montana's contract with the United States. Basically, they state that when congress agreed to let Montana join statehood in 1889, they also agreed to Montana's constitution. In that constitution it states that any person has the right to bear arms. I'm not sure where this will head as the United States would not let Montana withdraw from the Union. The United States has proven they don't honor contracts in some war back in the mid 1800s. It was after that when gun control started. To keep certain minority groups from having guns.

[Brian K Beckett]

I would still like to hear some oppinions on why guns should be banned.

[tkcomer]

There are lots of reasons why some people want to ban guns. Some just flat don't like them at all. Some believe it will reduce crime. Ban the guns, crime goes down. This group actually believes that with a passion. Showing them proof that it doesn't work doesn't matter to them. We have to try. Since they know they can't ban everything on a federal level, they divide the gun owners up into camps. Rifles that have high capacity magazines are "weapons of war". No "sane" hunters use those. That ploy did work. A lot of hunters felt the same way and said they should ban them. But don't be fooled. The antis are after every one. After the assault rifle ban (Which really did nothing), they started ranting about sniper rifles. Hunters found out that was any rifle that you could mount a scope on. Evil looking pistols that had high capacity magazines. It didn't matter that most of the guns they were trying to get rid of were high dollar guns. And the criminals generally use cheap handguns and shotguns since they throw them away after they use them. They had to start somewhere. Facts mean nothing to them. They have to lie through their teeth to get their point across. The sad part is, a lot of voters agree with them. Never underestimate the do gooders.

[mark]

They had to start somewhere. Facts mean nothing to them. They have to lie through their teeth to get their point across. The sad part is, a lot of voters agree with them. Never underestimate the do gooders.

I couldn't agree more. Let's ask someone in kennesaw Ga about this.

Here's an exerpt from the story:

Crime just isn't much of a problem in "Gun Town U.S.A." According to state figures, Kennesaw's per-capita crime rate has remained essentially static (and low) since 1983. The most recent homicide, in 1989, was committed with a knife. The last gun homicide, in 1986, involved two young men from out of state who were staying at a local motel.

You can read the entire story below:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

They are now killing each other with knives...and...that happened in 1989. Need I say more about gun ownership?? Even the punks are paying attention.

I bet those folks like their mandatory gun ownership laws.

Sounds like a great place to raise kids.............see ya mark

[Brian K Beckett]

There are lots of reasons why some people want to ban guns. Some just flat don't like them at all. Some believe it will reduce crime. Ban the guns, crime goes down. This group actually believes that with a passion. Showing them proof that it doesn't work doesn't matter to them. We have to try. Since they know they can't ban everything on a federal level, they divide the gun owners up into camps. Rifles that have high capacity magazines are "weapons of war". No "sane" hunters use those. That ploy did work. A lot of hunters felt the same way and said they should ban them. But don't be fooled. The antis are after every one. After the assault rifle ban (Which really did nothing), they started ranting about sniper rifles. Hunters found out that was any rifle that you could mount a scope on. Evil looking pistols that had high capacity magazines. It didn't matter that most of the guns they were trying to get rid of were high dollar guns. And the criminals generally use cheap handguns and shotguns since they throw them away after they use them. They had to start somewhere. Facts mean nothing to them. They have to lie through their teeth to get their point across. The sad part is, a lot of voters agree with them. Never underestimate the do gooders.


I am sure this is true. I personally wish guns were never invented. But the fact is they are here and have been here for hundreds of years, and wouold be here still if a ban was in effect. I just want to know why they think they have a right to make it to where I cannot own one? How is my owning a gun bothering them or endangering their rights? I guess it doesent matter if it bothers their rights. We have lost right to not wear a seatbelt, true free speech. We are in the process of loosing the right to smoke, eat foods we want, wear baggy clothes, own pit bulls, etc, etc, etc. I think the people in Russia have more freedome then we do anymore................

What is the sefinition of freedom? I know Bush changed the definition of torture and Clinton doesent know what the definition of "IS" is.
And someone asked me how I could think we would loose gun rights under a republican. My answer is I think we have lost more civil liberties and personal freedom under a republican president, congress, and senate then we have ever lost in history.

[$Money$]

The only control that should be handed out by the goverment is birth control not gun control. End of sentence.

[acoolmom777]

Ban or not.....gun crime won't change...anyone can get a gun on the black market, they will just have to pay more...whats the ole saying..."guns don't kill people, people kill people" as for "Gun Control"... I control my guns very well thank you...

[Brian K Beckett]

And still no one wants to voice their oppinion on why guns should be banned.

[John Deere "B"]

And still no one wants to voice their oppinion on why guns should be banned.

Seems very odd dosen't it? Especially since 19 people have either voted to ban some/or all guns. Was wondering just like you, what is their reasoning?

[mark]

And still no one wants to voice their oppinion on why guns should be banned.

That's because there is no good reason to ban guns.

They don't hurt anyone...........see ya mark

[Brian K Beckett]

That's because there is no good reason to ban guns.

They don't hurt anyone...........see ya mark


Maybe your right. I just thought that with other things people want banned like smoking or people that think we absolutly must have seatbelt and helmet laws that at least anti gun people could at least provide a point that might make gun owners like us think about needing gun laws. I guess they wont be getting me to change my mind anytime soon.


I do have one question. Do you think that the NRA is the only lobby that supports the people.

[tkcomer]

Sometimes I wonder. The people of San Francisco voted to ban guns. The people did this. Amazingly, it got overturned by the California Supreme Court but it may be appealed.

[John Deere "B"]

Sometimes I wonder. The people of San Francisco voted to ban guns. The people did this. Amazingly, it got overturned by the California Supreme Court but it may be appealed.


From what I have seen & heard on the news concerning most San Francisco people they are a large group of nut cases.