would you support a constitutional amendment to ban handguns?

[WalterMitty]

yes, obviously.

of course we will never be able to clean up all of the saturday night specials that are floating around on the streets.

[dazzleman]

no

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No I don't have down's syndrome.

[Colin]

No, I haven't been smoking crack lately.

[John Dibble]

No, I don't want to make law abiding citizens even more prone to victimization by uncivilized thugs.

[Ebowed]

No(rmal)

[MODU]

No(rmal)

^^^  No.  Handguns are least of the offensive weapons on the market.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

yes, obviously.

No.

Besides, aren't you conservatives supposed to be the ones who are against gun control? Or did that change when you conservatives seized power?

[John Dibble]

yes, obviously.

No.

Besides, aren't you conservatives supposed to be the ones who are against gun control? Or did that change when you conservatives seized power?

Bandit, Walter isn't very conservative on a lot of things - people tend to question why he's still a Republican.

[Frodo]

No, obviously. 

[Nym90]

No. Handguns can and often do have a legitimate self-defense purpose.

I would only support banning a gun if it has no reasonable purpose whatsoever for hunting, sporting, or self-defense.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Bandit, Walter isn't very conservative on a lot of things - people tend to question why he's still a Republican.

He's extremely conservative: He supports union-busting and right-to-scab laws, and thinks poor people shouldn't be allowed to chew bubble gum.

[A18]

No. I'm not an idiot.

^^^

No. Handguns can and often do have a legitimate self-defense purpose.

I would only support banning a gun if it has no reasonable purpose whatsoever for hunting, sporting, or self-defense.

What is a "reasonable" sporting purpose?

[Nym90]

No. I'm not an idiot.

^^^

No. Handguns can and often do have a legitimate self-defense purpose.

I would only support banning a gun if it has no reasonable purpose whatsoever for hunting, sporting, or self-defense.

What is a "reasonable" sporting purpose?

Obviously each gun would be looked at on a case by case basis.

Plastic guns, nuclear bombs, tanks, hand grenades, and fully automatics would be some examples of weapons that have no reasonable purpose other than to kill people.

[John Dibble]

Bandit, Walter isn't very conservative on a lot of things - people tend to question why he's still a Republican.

He's extremely conservative: He supports union-busting and right-to-scab laws, and thinks poor people shouldn't be allowed to chew bubble gum.

Just because someone holds some conservative positions by no means makes one 'extremely conservative' - it simply means they hold conservative postions. Walter also has many positions that would be considered liberal, such as his position on guns and his support of affirmative action, but this doesn't mean he's extremely liberal. You shouldn't make such broad generalizations, it's just plain stupid.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

No way would I EVER support such an absurd proposal.  NEVER! 

[A18]

No. I'm not an idiot.

^^^

No. Handguns can and often do have a legitimate self-defense purpose.

I would only support banning a gun if it has no reasonable purpose whatsoever for hunting, sporting, or self-defense.

What is a "reasonable" sporting purpose?

Obviously each gun would be looked at on a case by case basis.

Plastic guns, nuclear bombs, tanks, hand grenades, and fully automatics would be some examples of weapons that have no reasonable purpose other than to kill people.

Since when are nuclear bombs, tanks, and hand grenades guns?

And obviously, all of those things could be used for sporting purposes.

[David S]

Well let's put it this way; I have guns and you don't. Try taking mine away from me.

Mitty by your own admission you would not get the saturday night specials off the street. That means the honest people who obey the law would be disarmed by your proposal while the street thugs, who don't obey the law,  would be armed to the teeth. Do you like the idea of innocent people having no means of defending themselves against violent armed thugs?

Why is it that all of your ideas involve regulating other people's lives? Don't you like freedom?

[WalterMitty]

of course i believe in freedom,

i wish kids in the inner city were free to go outside and play without fear of being shot up in a drive-by.

how many (innocent) people have to die before we get serious about doing something?

if 2 service men die in iraq tomorrow, thatll be in the news.  how many people are going to get shot up tomorrow in our cities?  you wont hear much about them.

[Jake]

No (not walter mitty)

[WalterMitty]

No (not walter mitty)

well maybe im an extremist on this issue.  i can live with that.

im just fed up with picking up the paper every day and reading about another young person shot.

[nini2287]

im just fed up with picking up the paper every day and reading about another young person shot.

I think we need to attack the cause of the problem-poverty and drug-ridden inner cities.  If we banned handguns, there would still be a strong illegal market for them.  I agree with Nym's ideas.

[MaC]

would you support a constitutional amendment to ban handguns?

yes, obviously.

of course i believe in freedom,

contradiction, fool.

Mitty, I don't care if you want never to own a firearm or let your son around them, but taking them from me if a serious offense.  I have a right to defend myself if someone assaults me or tries to steal my property.  I handgun would in fact be the most sane solution.

  A kinfe-too little force to be effective (and you must be quite agile, and attack from close range)

A shotgun-too much, want to scare or injure them, not necessarily kill them

A PPK-perfect-enough for the assilant to think about what they've done, and chances are, won't actually kill them.

Fact of the matter is, I should have the right to this lethal force if I want to.  Your child safety argument doesn't hold well because there's always trigger locks you can get-plus you can educate your son that it's 'not a toy'.

Please agree that even if you want this an amendment would be taking this issue way way too far.

[Jacobtm]

No.

"When they kick at your front door, how you gonna come? With your hands on your head, or the trigger of a gun?"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, it's far too late for that. If guns don't have any positive cultural connections, then it's possible to ban handguns without too much trouble (and you might be suprised at the extent to which criminals tend to obey the law on that sort of thing. They'll do their best to find loopholes o/c, which is why most inner-city shootings over here (not that there are many by U.S standards, but that's not the point) are done with converted replicas, rather than the real things) but if they do, then you're on a hiding to nothing really...
Maybe offering bribes for people in inner cities to give up their guns might work better?