Talk Elections

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's my stance.

I tend to Agree or Strongly Agree... Although I am for background checks and locks on all new guns I feel strongly that any law abiding citizen should be able to have a gun. Just keep them away from criminals and people who don't know what the hell their doing with them and everything should be fine.

SO I'm guessing you disagree with the NRA??/

funny how people always forget the first part of the 2nd amendment

"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. "


We have a standing army now, so a 'well regulated militia' is no longer needed.

A standing army is unconstitutional. We do not NEED one of those. We do have militias but they were transformed into the National Guard. After that little Civil War incident the Federal Government got scared of its citizens organizing and defending its states constitutional rights.

I support any gun being legal as long as it has a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose. Otherwise, I don't believe that a weapon should be legally available to the general public if it has no legitimate use other than to kill people. Note that this covers the entire spectrum from Sherman Tanks, nuclear bombs, AK-47s, Uzis, etc....if you believe in an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms I'd think you'd have to say that everything must be legal, up to and including tanks and nuclear bombs. Otherwise you are admitting that it is ok to ban some weapons, but not others...so then where do you draw the line? I say if the gun has no legitimate purpose at all other than to kill people, it shouldn't be legal.

Obviously there is some degree of disagreement as to whether or not a gun has a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, but for most weapons old fashioned common sense should do the job...would anyone in their right mind use this gun to deer hunt, for example? Obviously a fully automatic machine gun is completely useless for hunting.

Also, before anyone says anything, I have hunted personally before, and live in a very rural area where hunting is HUGE. I'm not some big-city elitist. :)

Hmmm in some ways yes in others no.... If you gave me two choices either guns are banned or anyone can buy a gun... I'd go for the latter option.

Agreed, Wildcard, I strongly support guns being legal if they have a legitimate use for something other than killing people. I fully recognize the importance of guns and the need for people to defend themselves. I just think that you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously, and that seems to be the most logical place to draw the line.

I am for background checks, background checks at gun shows, and assault weapons bans. I could probably be talked into supporting a one gun a month policy.

I am not for expanding the gun ban list and I am against forcing gun owners to get licenses. I fully and completely support legislation to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits; after all, if I run over someone with my Cadillac, for example, they don't sue GM. I am *not against* allowing people to apply for and obtain permits, provided they are competent and of sound mind, to carry a concealed weapon for protection.

I absolutely believe the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, so the question for me isn't should there be gun control, but how much should there be.

Very well put.

Thank you. :)

I guess your senators are very anti-gun, especially Feinstein?

Allowing anyone right to bare arms is just asking for trouble, just look at colombine and dunblain.
Gun crime is always going to be a problem while guns are easily accesible

"Strongly Disagree"

unlike most conservatives i think ALL of the amendements are equaly important.
even the second.

Strongly agree, having guns in the hands of law abiding citizens saves lives.

Background checks, no assault weapons

But the guns don't just go into law abiding hands do they, they get into criminals hands who use them to murder people, and unstable people's hands who take them into school and use them to shoot their classmates and teachers

Exactly.

Storngly Agree!

What kind of weapon is not an assault weapon?

"The right for a citizen to have and bear arms shall not be infringed..."
-2nd Ammendment.

I'd permit one standard model hunting rifle for the sportsmen. I'd restrict non-cooking knife sales because the buyers are just sick, and I'd promote stun-guns.

Are you suggesting there is NO right to self-defense?

No, ...but any gun that is good for hunting is plenty good for self-defense too, usually. Certainly allowances should be made for guns which are particularly good for defense but not for hunting or sporting...but these should be more difficult to obtain.

Criminals can get guns whether their are laws against them or not. I guess their are no gun crimes in Britian, huh?

Yes there are gun crimes, but there are a hell of a lot less, and the gun crimes tend to be gangs killing each other, not masscre's of children who's only crime was going to school that day

But then you have a very legitimate reason for putting all these 'bad guys' in prison and away from society

Why should firearms used for self-defense be more difficulat to obtain than firearms used for hunting?

Is self-defense less important than hunting?

Also, many firearms used for hunting are less than optimal for self defense.  A Winchester 70n SEM is great for Buffalo, but not too handy to use in most self-defense situations.

Not less important, but the only guns that are really good for defense but not for hunting are also probably going to be used a lot by criminals too (handguns come to mind here).

If you want a gun to defend your home, a shotgun works quite well, and is much easier than a handgun to shoot accurately. If you need defense on the street, I can see the need for a handgun, but it shouldn't be easy to obtain a handgun because they are obviously going to be used a lot by criminals, probably moreso than in defense.

Basically my position is that we need to look at each gun objectively, and ask what its purpose is. Rather than blanket laws that apply to all guns we would be better off judging each on its own merits.

Wasn't their a school shooting in Scotland a few years back? Kind of throws your argument out, huh?

Dunblane

First, a shotgun is a poor weapon for dealing with an intruder in the home.  Due to the barrel and overall length, it is clumsy to use within a home.

Second, shotguns are by nature not designed to be accurate.  A good handgun can be very accurate within the range for which it is designed to be used.  In fact, it is less likely to result in collateral damage.

Third, statistics are clear, people defend themselves far more often with handguns than criminal use them to committ crimes.

Fourth, if you believe that handguns are designed to be used by criminals you are really nuts.  Probably the best self-defense handgun in general circulation is the 1911A1, which was designed by John Browning for the U.S. military (or are you going to call the military 'criminals?').

Fifth, are you an animst or something?  Firearms do NOT have a life of their own.  Why don't you try punishing those who misuse firearms instead of transferring the blame for individual criminal acts to inanimate objects (tools)?

Six, so far you ignorance and bigotry on the subject have proven to be overwhelming.  Try learning something before posting!

I have Howard Dean's positon on this.

I used to be for gun control, but it is a complete failre.  Most of the guns that were banned in the Assault Weapons Ban were back on the street within weeks in slightly modified versions.  All gun control does is take guns away from law biding citizens and leave them in the hands of criminals.

I'm all for gun ownership and I strongly recomend the shotgun.  

I like this one.  I had forgotten.  Reason number 3 for being a Republican.

keep reminding me.  :)

.44 magnum revolver :)

you didn't before a gun ban?

Suggest everyone read Steve Chapkman's new column, "Assault-weapon ban follows a curious logic."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi0405270288may27,0,3497464.column

Corrected link. I don't know how yall mess this up.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi0405270288may27,0,3497464.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi0405270288may27,0,3497464.column)

CarlHayden--

Your ad hominem attacks aside, I own several shotguns and are quite adept at firing them accurately. Maybe that's why I have a bias in favor of them...I didn't realize they were so hard for everyone else to handle. I personally find them a lot easier to fire accurately than a handgun...longer barrel, easier to aim. Maybe that's just me though.

A good deer rifle, such as a 30/30 or 30 aught 6 would be more accurate than a shotgun, true, though at close range it would hardly matter that much. The shotgun of course deliberately disperses the shot over a wider area, which therefore gives you a greater chance of hitting your target but also a greater chance of collateral damage, too.

I'd appreciate we keep the name calling out of this. Don't make assumptions about me based on my statements with no other proof to back them up. I'll extend you the same courtesy. I'm not anti-miltary or anti-prosecuting people for gun crimes, for example.

I strongly support punishing people who commit crimes, too. I know that people kill people...but guns make it a lot easier to do that.

My point is, where do we draw the line? I'm all for having a gun for self-defense. I just feel that if you want a handgun, which has no legitimate use really other than for self-defense, you should have to provide a reason for it.

Personally, if I needed defense on the street against robbers or such, I'd take a knife over a gun any day. Even more accurate, and simpler and easier to use (important considerations when time is of the essence), and just as deadly. The only advantage the gun has is the fact that you can shoot someone from a distance. At close range, though, a good long knife is going to be a much more effective weapon.

Once again you contradict yourself.

Please carefully read what I said.

Due to the "pattern" created by a shotgun it is more likely to result in collateral damages, something either you do not understand, or simply refuse to admit.

Self-defense is a right which does not have to be proved beforehand.  Either you do believe in self-defense, or you don't!  Knock off the contradictory language (i.e. stop acting like Kerry).

Are you of Italian descent?  Why do you want to bring a knife to a gunfight?

I admitted it increases collateral damage. I stated that clearly in my last post. I realize this is a drawback. The closer the range, though, the less the collateral damage would be, as the pattern doesn't have time to spread far apart yet.

A knife is just as effective as a gun at close range, perhaps more so. Now if someone has a gun pointed at you from a distance, yes, you need a gun too...most robbers or other street assailants, however, are going to be right up close to you I'd think, within knife range. I'm not Italian, no.

I do believe in self-defense, but I don't think it's too much to ask someone to at least state why they specifically need, say, a handgun, when something else might be just fine. Handguns are concealable...that's their main advantage, but they are both less powerful and overall less accurate (yes, I realize the shotgun patterns...).

I'm not saying it should be difficult to get a permit necessarily, but I do feel that anyone who wants a handgun should have to apply for a permit, yes.

carl,  this is tacky.

but funny  :D

Better be a good shot.

I think a fully automatic large-caliber rifle is best.  Just tell 'em for hunting  ;)

Well, we're making progress.

Now, with respect to the merits of a knife versus a handgun, I suggest you check with the experts.  Unless you really know what you're doing, you are going to get hurt in using a knife.  Also, the stronger, faster party in a knife fight has an advantage (not to mention things like 'reach').

Next, do you understand the difference between a 'right' and a 'priviledge?'  You are treating the right to self-defense as a priviledge.