Republicans & Conservatives Archives

Eric- You are absolutely correct. The really interesting thing is that if the Left works very hard and stops the N.R.A. they will clear the field for the real constitutional radicals, the Gun Owners Of America (G.O.A.). The difference is that the N.R.A. will listen to, and talk with, the Anti-Gunners, the G.O.A. simply doesn’t care and is not in the mood to talk to anyone about their constitutional rights….period.
The Assault Weapons Ban has never affected a criminal’s ability to purchase any type of firearm and proscribing more types of firearms will only create more criminals.

Of course,what you fail to mention is that some of the guns banned and currently legal can be easily modified to become fully automatic.

I have a cousin who used to own legally a canon.

The laxity and ineptitude of our heavily lobbied and nonsensicle gun control laws is not a rational argument for the further relaxation of the gun laws, nor is it logical that the heavily lobbied and nonsensical tax laws is rational argument for the repeal of all taxes.

If it is sensible to completely deregulate the ownership of weaponry, why have a police force, court system, or rule of law at all? Just let everyone shoot it out.

Eric,
While you are right that the 2nd admendment does give us the right to keep and bear arms, nowhere does it state that a person has the right to buy bullets. Cop killer bullets have been outlawed and gone through the court system. Courts found that bullets fall under commerce thus they can be fully regulated.

Bush just opened a can of worms that will cost gun owners millions as the right of the consumers will be under assualt as opponents use the DC sniper attack to move to registering bullets.

as a liberal…and a gun owner…(yeah i know…but part of the family is redneck….)

i’ve never understood the upset over the ban….the nra has plenty of guns…and there are plenty of guns that can kill lots of things available for all! i don’t even mind a waiting period…cuz if i need a gun immediately…chances are it’s not for a great reason.

responsible gun owners, the vast majority, aside….keeping guns off the street, or at least curbing their prosperity, is a good thing. if this bill helped save a couple of cops from being gunned down from a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill other people (ie..not yer typical hunting rifle) then keep the ban…..

the ban didn’t stop me from purchasing the guns i wanted….but mabey it stopped a few gang members from getting them illegally…..and if so…..amen.

why have a police force, court system, or rule of law at all? Just let everyone shoot it out.

Dude, don’t get ‘em started on that! It’s exactly what they want.

I have to agree with rob. I’m also a liberal and a gun owner. The ban didn’t stop me from getting the gun I wanted, and all of the major law enforcement organizations say it saves cop’s lives.

Hmmm, maybe it could be an idea to join the civilised world and get rid of them all(obviously they are still used but in a restrained manner). And the idea that more guns may lead to an decrease in criminals is illogical.

The rest of the world hears only excuses and lectures from America, maybe it’s time to lead by example.

I don’t want all guns outlawed. Kerry obviously doesn’t, especially not when he’s skeet shooting on the campaign trail. I don’t think most liberals are that extreme. I mean, just look at the movies Hollywood puts out.

No, what Liberals want are the weapons that are practically military in nature, and which can easily be modified from semiautomatic status to become fully destructive. These aren’t sporting weapons or defensive weapons, these are weapons for people who want to be able to mow down lots of other people, cops included.

What conservatives seem to want to do is ignore most of the police departments across this nation, the people who actually have to get shot at with these weapons. I mean, what do the cops know? I think it bears pointing out that the leaders of the NRA are the gun manufacturers, the people who make money off of this stuff.

All in all, this attitude that we can’t and shouldn’t regulate guns is not right, because we regulate free speech, too. We have provisions for the time, place, and manner, for obscenity, indecency, and defamation of character. There are also privacy related restrictions there, too.

So, if a principle like free speech can be regulated, why can’t the next constitutional freedom over have its time place and manner regulated, so long as one maintains the right to bear arms? The NRA, however, maintains that waiting periods and background checks, which only function to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and those who have only bought the weapons to commit some crime of passion. I remember a Saturday night live skit about the NRA’s opposition to waiting periods. A man goes to a gun shop to get a weapon and is told he has to wait, but oh, he can have this medieval flail to defend himself with! Of course the man gets shot by a criminal trying to use that weapon.

Really. The assault weapons ban will not keep people from owning guns, it will keep them from owning a kind of weapon that only serves the purpose of criminals and killers, which only serve to let criminals outgun the police.

If the weapons ban is insufficient, who likely made it that way? Who likely lobbied to water things down? If it’s insufficient, why are the police departments such big fans? And I why are you, the firearms libertarian, arguing such a point.

To the comment that Bush opened a can of worms. Bush said that he supported an extension of the ban and would sign it. He was not being completely candid, since he knew congress would not send it to him, but congress did not and as far as I know nobody even introduced the bill.

Gun control is a feel good issue for liberals who want to be seen as fighting violence but don’t want to take the next step. I live in Virginia, which has liberal (in the original sense of freer) gun laws. Yet our gun crime is much lower than our neighbors in the District of Columbia and Maryland that have much stricter rules. The difference is that in Virginia if you are involved in a gun crime you go far away for a long time to an unpleasant place. Other places the bad guys are treated more as victims and are more likely to beat the system. (I am so glad the Virginia courts got the first run at the DC snipers and OJ wouldn’t be walking the streets if he had committed his crimes in the Old Dominon.) You can pass all the bans you want. If the courts are not willing to enforce laws, you got nothing. I don’t disagree with gun control in theory. In practice, however, I think it give politicians and people who are not tough on crime a convenient excuse to do little to put the bad guys away.

What conservatives seem to want to do is ignore most of the police departments across this nation, the people who actually have to get shot at with these weapons. I mean, what do the cops know? I think it bears pointing out that the leaders of the NRA are the gun manufacturers, the people who make money off of this stuff.

Yeah, that baffled me too. One would think that if guns prevented crime the cops would be all for it. The fact that they’re so uniformly opposed to lessened gun control tells us something.

Guy’s, I just have make a comment here. I understand that you have the right to own these weapons, and that is what they are, weapons.
Just because you can, why do you have to?
We can all cite statistics pro and con, but what is the point of owning these weapons?
Slippery slope? I don’t think so.
Do you plan to protect your family in your own home? I think that automatic weapons are pretty indiscriminate about what they kill or destroy.
Do we think they are necessary to fight the terrorists at home?
Do we need these weapons to fight our own military?
Again, I don’t think so.
This can’t possibly be a left or right issue.
So, again I ask, what is the point?

How many bad guys have we actually punished under existing laws? The problem is that the same guys who want to control guns so stringently are loath to hand down long sentences to the bad guys who they catch with guns, most of whom have some kind of abuse excuse that makes them “the real victims”.

One angle and dichotomy of this issue lies between responsible urban dwellers and responsible rural dwellers. Responsible urban dwellers in large part rely upon the police and neighbor vigilence as protection. Criminals don’t like being watched when committing crimes let alone being photographed or videotaped, hence, a most many criminals try to act covertly, avoiding targets where vigilence and prying neighbors are a high potential. Such responsible urban dwellers may own a pistol for defense against an intruder into their domecile, but, unless that are a hunter or recreational range shooter, they have no desire nor need for a large semi-automatic rifle. (exceptions of course exist, but, in general this is true).

Rural dwellers however come from a very different set of circumstances. They are not within earshot of neighbors and neighbors are often not even within view. Owning acreage and fenced agricultural land means one is often outside, a fair distance from the house and even cover, in the event of an attack. Trespassers on rural private property constitutes a potential threat, not only to oneself, but, one’s family as well. The sheriff usually cannot respond in a couple minutes, and drive time to a rural location can be as much as 20 minutes away. Self-defense becomes a responsibility under these circumstances. And semi-automatic weapons in open area are far more effective against multiple intruders or fast moving intruders than a revolver with only 6 rounds.

Any laws passed which are favored by one of the groups above is not going to make sense to other group, in general. This is precisely why, Gun laws restricting certain types of weapons are going to be opposed, and laws opening weapons onto the streets of America will also be opposed.

Rural folks rely far less on government services than city folks do. And that is never going to change. Folks who rely on themselves more are going to demand their rights to gun ownership, and view that right as part of the founding father’s understanding that when government becomes abusive toward its people, the people have an obligation to defend and even overthrow that government, let alone uninvited intruders onto their acreage homesite.

Unless there is a way a federal law regarding gun ownership can assuage the fears of both these groups, it will always be fought and tentative at best.

When will liberals learn that Gun control is, and has been, a losing issue for them in politics ?
( Ask Al Gore).
There is, nor has there ever been “cop killer bullets”. That FARSE was invented by anti-gun groups about teflon-coated - bullets that only reduce barrel wear, they have zero effect on bodyarmor( bullet proof vests).
Commonly used bodyarmor , used by the police officers, wont stop modern hunting rifle ammo, nor were they designed to.
Many, many, police officers belong to the NRA, the NRA has always supported police officers and promoted zero tolerance for those that commit gun crimes.
If a liberal politician sponcered a law that said ; shoot a cop doing his duty on the police force, you get 100 years in prision, no parole, no libby judge will let you off, the NRA would be all over supporting that bill!!

John Kerry should have NEVER said anything more on that issue other than….”I support the 2nd ammendment and hunting” .
Rather than doing that, he stuck his golden foot in his mouth and said things that any hunter or shooter knows is false.

When will they learn ?

“Self-defense becomes a responsibility under these circumstances. And semi-automatic weapons in open area are far more effective against multiple intruders or fast moving intruders than a revolver with only 6 rounds.”

My point was about assault (see automatic weapons).
No one disputes the right of anyone to defend themselves against attack from intruders, be it urban, suburban or rural. I am not against owning firearms. I own one myself. I also know how to use it.
My point about assault guns is WHY.
It would seem that the last thing on our governments mind is a well armed population.
What I don’t understand is why do I need an assault weapon?
Why does anybody NEED to own these weapons?

My position on this, which is way out of the mainstream even for the Democrats, is that if you own a gun and it’s not a hunting gun that you use for hunting or if you’re not a professional security officer, then you’re a delusional idiot.

The second amendment is from ancient times when gun technology was just reaching adolescence… most people killed in the Revolutionary war were killed by bayonets and swords. The second amendment is ambiguous, true, but I think the founding fathers genuinely wanted people to own the primitive weapons available at the time in order for our fledgeling, rural country to better repel foreign attack. At the time, of course, “weapons” meant swords, bayonets, and guns that were inaccurate and incredibly difficult to actually use.

In a time of modern organized armies and semiautomatic weapons, I am for the total repeal of the Second Amendment.

-Cf

CF,
I definately couldn’t go that far. The constitution is allready under attack from all sides.
Yes this a living document, that said, I for one think we should leave it alone for awhile.

At one time, men who were not permitted to own swords or other weapons were called slaves. The purpose of the second amendment is not merely to allow our citizens to repel foreign invaders, but to provide a final check against the potential for the power of our own government to run amok. It all comes back to the declaration of independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is true that in truly peaceful times there is no need for assault weapons in a civilian populace. I agree with that. But I think it is foolish to expect people to wait until times are not peaceful to be allowed to obtain more powerful weaponry. The ability of the people to buy weapons of any sort must be preserved, I think, if they are to maintain the capacity to alter or abolish a government gone wrong, as our founders maintained is both their right and duty. It is an insurance against the future, more than a need for the present. A final insurance to keep free men from ever becoming slaves.

One addendum to what I wrote before:

Hand in hand with the right to bear these weapons should go firm and ultimate responsibility for their use, good or ill. I agree that we must increase and enforce penalties for illegal use of firearms, while leaving the doors open to our citizens to purchase and use them without limit for legal ends.

CF-

I don’t think you would call me a “delusional idiot” if you lived here. The U.S. is not all NYC, and guns of all types are a necessary part of live in rural America.

As for the ban, it was a stupid law and had no effect on crime or on the access to assault type weapons. The ban was a market control (restricting supply) that never worked. You could have gone to any gun store in America last week and purchased a pre-ban SKS or AK-47 at very reasonalbe prices. The ban temporarily drove up the price in the early day, but when the market figured out that there was greater supply than demand the prices quickly came back down.

I personally don’t own a gun. I don’t hunt and live in what seems to be a fairly quiet neighbor hood.

Before I moved to this house, I lived in an apartment complex that was converted to section 8 housing. The atmostphere in the last couple of years became more and more dangerous there.

My car was broken into twice, and on the day I moved out there was an armed robbery in the middle of the day in a parking lot. (Which amazingly management tried to explain as not aserious event.)

I have never owned a gun, I do know how to shoot and have used several guns in target practice. My ancestors were hunters and usually owned several guns.

Last weekend a man shot a repo man repossesing his car at midnight. Texas has a law that allows you to shoot someone commiting a felony at night. There will probably not be charges filed in the case. The case was refered to a grand jury. About a year ago the same situation happened and no charges were filed. I also had a gun pointed at me by an irate driver a couple of years ago. I would have attempted a pit manuveur if he had fired it.

A short barrelled shot gun and a hand gun are common self defense guns among my friends and associates. My cousin is a bit of a gun nut and was pulled over once in a van loaded with a multitude of guns, a canon among them. (He used to take it to my granddmother’s farm in eastern kentucky and shoot it. She hated it, but tolerated it.) He scared the police officer, but was legal with his arsonal.

My cousin though a bit of a ne’er do well, has never shot anyone nor would I ever expect him to.

Guns don’t kill people , criminals do. I don’t have a problem with someone wanting a gun for self defense, or hunting; but I also recognize that some laws are a common sense approach to help the terminally stupid from hurting themselvesand others.

I have thought about buying a gun from time to time and would want to be able to, if I felt threatened. I know people that deal in illegal, automatic weapons. I have seen an illegal Uzi. They aren’t hard to obtain.

Common sense says some guns should be illegal, but it also says that sometimes law abiding citizens use them to good effect. I find both sides of this issue often extreme, and seeming to lack that common sense.

david…you make it sound as if americans are living a remake of “red-dawn”…where the cubans invade america…and we have to have our guns to firefight our way home!

as for the comments that “cop killer bullets” was a farse, by beagle, please discuss the “black-rhino” bullets that were such a big controversy about 7 or 8 years ago. those bullets shatter when they enter a body, making it impossible to remove them….basically garunteeing death or the loss of a limb, depending on where you got hit. those existed….they were not some liberal farse…..

Personally, I have no need for a “street legal” auto that will go 140 mph., however, I would’nt call someone that did want one an Idiot.
They might obey all the speed laws and take it to a race track on saturday?…fine with me..I dont care if they obey the law.

Fully Automatic guns have been banned since the 30’s, thats a non issue.

I personally would’nt go hunting with a AK-47, it’s an inaccurate piece of poo that would be nothing more than a handicap. Many sporting guns are far more accurate, powerfull, and reliable…ie..the remington 7600, and many others, and they operate EXACTLY the same.
If someone wants one, fine, who ane I to judge, perhaps they like taking it to a shooting range?, its kinda like the 140mph. car at a racetrack.

Most police cars are equiped with a 12 ga. pump shotgun mounted in the front seat, just in case things get nasty, NOTHING will beat 12ga. buckshot for close-quarters combat.( cops aint stupid).
Shotguns are sporting arms, hunting rifles are far and away more lethal than an ak-47 semi-auto.

Tip for Dems…when your in a hole…stop digging!

Greg,

If it is sensible to completely deregulate the ownership of weaponry, why have a police force, court system, or rule of law at all? Just let everyone shoot it out.

It comes down to a balance Greg. We have a police force, court system, and rule of law to invest our right of self defence in an impartial party called the state to hopefully make impartial judgements about who wronged who and how they should pay for it. But we in no way gave up our individual and collective right to self defense, even to defend ourselves from our own government hypothetically.

The idea of our Republic is simple. We the people are the power. The state does not own us, we own the state. Or should anyway. That’s the idea behind the 2nd amendment. The same language in the first amendment is in the second amendment, but we change the meaning of, “shall not be infringed,” because it’s about guns. David is quite right about the rural and urban outlook toward guns.

1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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.”

…nowhere does it state that a person has the right to buy bullets…

I find this laughable. It’s like saying you have the right to free speech, but not the right to talk. What is speech without the right to publish? What is a gun without bullets?

rob,

…if this bill helped save a couple of cops from being gunned down from a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill other people (ie..not yer typical hunting rifle) then keep the ban…..

The funny thing is, most of these ‘assault weapons’ are actually less powerful and less accurate than guns that are semiauto and fully legal. Take the Tec-9 for instance. I bought one of these at a gun show before they were outlawed. It’s a piece of crap. Frankly I wouldn’t be caught dead with it at any of my friends drive-by shooting sprees. It’s purely spray and pray.

If you ask me, most criminals are morons who haven’t even test fired the gun they use to commit a crime with. Very few drive-by shootings for instance actually hit the intended victim. It’s almost always bystanders that get hit.

Stephen,

No, what Liberals want are the weapons that are practically military in nature, and which can easily be modified from semiautomatic status to become fully destructive. These aren’t sporting weapons or defensive weapons, these are weapons for people who want to be able to mow down lots of other people, cops included.

I wouldn’t advise anyone to buy a tec-9, but many of the semi-auto SKS and ‘military style’ models are good weapons to have. And they are in fact good defensive weapons. Consider that in Switzerland every household is required to have a fully automatic weapon to defend the country with. Citizen soldiers.

Think there would never be a need for such weapons? Think of the Los Angeles riots. Think of a large devastating natural disaster and gangs of looters and mauraders roaming your neighborhood. There are times when the police may not be able to protect you. In fact the police are primarily meant to come out when a crime has been committed to catch the criminal, not necessarily to prevent the crime.

That’s my main gripe about these nanny state advocates of making us all safer. It is we the people who are the power and defense of our country. The further we get away from that the weaker we will be. Both in terms of national security and the ‘police state’ liberals are so upset about (when republicans are in office.)

Really. The assault weapons ban will not keep people from owning guns, it will keep them from owning a kind of weapon that only serves the purpose of criminals and killers, which only serve to let criminals outgun the police.

I would disagree. I don’t think many criminals actually use these kinds of guns to committ crimes in the first place. What liquor store in your neighborhood was last held up by a man with a semi-auto Chinese made SKS? Probably none.

In fact I could make the case that these guns are more likely bought by people who just like guns. People who go to the range every month or every few months just to shoot.

I would argue that most criminals get their guns from other criminals who buy and sell stolen weapons. So in that sense, if fewer people own that type of gun it will mean criminals cannot steal them. But then that is true of every kind of gun. Most of the liberal anti-gun groups would have no problems demonizing and banning select groups of weapons until all are banned. In fact that is what they are already trying to do.

Rob,
By saying ” black rhino” , I think you mean “black talon”. It was a pistol bullet designed to have the copper casing peal back, making petals that cause more damage.
Senator Mortihan( sp.?) said it was designed to “do nothing more than rip and tear flesh”.
All hunting bullets are designed to do exactly that!!. expecially varmit bullets that explode on impact.

Next question ??

I have read a LOT of entries about how “cops” support gun control. This is very odd since I am a retired L.A. County Dep. Sheriff and none of these anti-gunners speak for me, or anyone else I EVER met in uniform !! L.A./California gun control laws are stict, very strict. The Sheriff’s Dept., for many years, had only issued one concealed carry permit…That’s right, just one. It was issued to Mr. Danny Thomas the actor and comedian, father of Marlo Thomas (“That Girl”) and father-in-law to Phil Donahue.
It didn’t matter how desperate the need was or who was in danger…only one celebrity was ever issued a permit for self-protection. Celebrity hath its privileges !!
On several occasions, during legal searches, I would find a loaded firearm in the possession of a man/woman. I would routinely “run” the subject and the weapon as well as ask several pointed questions. On more than one occasion I returned the weapon to its owner and NO paperwork was filed. I, as well as my partners, always felt that people had a RIGHT to protect themselves. None of these firearms EVER turned up in later reports as having been utilized in a crime, none !
When you (Lefties) throw around general information about “cops” supporting Gun-Control, think again.
Law abiding people have a RIGHT to LIFE, which means they have a right to protect that life. Criminals, on the other hand, have NEVER been deterred by strict gun laws. If you don’t believe me perhaps you would like to accompany me to Washington, D.C., where we can take a brisk 2 am “run for our lives” through our nations capitol !!?!

To clarify, I am for the repeal of the Second Amendment, but I think that it’s near the very bottom of my list of the nation’s priorities. There are plenty of other things I find more important.

-Cf

To: C.F.- Are you also for the repeal of the First Amendment ?

Samaritan: No. Are you?

-Cf

Eric et.al

You are mistaken about the 2nd Amendment; it does not give one the right to unfettered access to firearms. The Second has two clauses, and those that advocate unfettered access to firearms take the second clause and run with it, completely ignoring the first. One clause does not hold sway without the other. And so the Supreme Court has stated a more then one ruling.

I am not against RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, fore with rights come responsibility, to self, family, society, and country.

While I would not go so far as to repeal the 2nd Amendment I do believe it should be re-written with modern day concerns at heart. I have taken the liberty or re-writing it, to wit:

AMENDMENT XXVIII (28)

Section 1.
The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
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.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Section 4.
In order to safeguard the lives and property of all citizens, ensure domestic tranquility and the peaceful co-existence of all, but ensure tyrannical rule not take hold in these United States; the right of the people to keep and bear arms subject to the impositions and as prescribed herein shall not be infringed.

Section 5.
Weapons and personal firearms shall be defined as follows:

I. Hand Guns: any recognized make and model of manual or semi-automatic firearm classified as a handgun by a competent legal authority, the magazine of which will not exceed 11 clips. The bore on the handgun will not exceed .44 cal in diameter.

II. Rifles: any recognized make and model of manual or semi-automatic firearm classified as a rifle by a competent legal authority, (this includes rifles used primarily for sports shooting and competition), the magazine of which will not exceed 11 clips. The bore on the rifle will not exceed .44 cal in diameter.

III. Antiques: any recognized make and model of manual firearm classified as a hand gun, or rifle by a competent legal authority, having not the ability to fire a projectile of any sort and being at least 75 years in age shall be considered antique.

Section 6.
Any weapon, and or firearm not covered by Section 5 shall be prohibited. The people shall be limited to two personal firearms bond by the following restrictions: one handgun, one rifle; or two handguns; or two rifles. At no time will the people own, or have with their possession more than two personal firearms in any combination. No limit will be placed on the number of non-operative antique firearms in any combination, possessed by the people.

Section 7.
The people shall register each firearm with a competent local authority, and further be required to possess a federally controlled license to display, carry, or operate a firearm. The people shall renew registration yearly on the anniversary of its issuance. Persons under the age of 18 years of age shall not be permitted to own, or display, a personal firearm. Persons under 18 years of age shall be permitted to carry and operate a personal firearm for sporting purposes only, and only under competent adult supervision.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Again, this law was a lie to begin with. It wasn ‘t a ban and the few weapons affected weren’t assault weapons but civilian replicas.

Over the past year you could go to just about any pawn shop and buy an AK-47 and a fifty round drum mag. The law only stoped importation and production of new weapons, and did not affect the millions that were all ready in country.

Same with pistol mags. At the last gun show I went to there were tons of 30 round NATO clips available for my HP. I don’t use them as the stick out the butt, but I’ve got several 15 rounders that I bought after the prices came back down.

It was a meaningless law.

Call me crazy but I think people should be allowed to own guns but I don’t understand the ‘need’ for certain kinds.

My ex should never have been allowed to buy guns. He was obsessed with them. He had books on ordering any type of weapon ever made.

He shot at me one night while I was driving away using an SKS with one of those rounds that blows apart at impact. It came through the trunk and part of the shell ended up in the back of my seat !

The thing is to get the guns out of the hands of the people who will do harm with them.

Dawn, I agree. Your ex deserves to be (and I hope is) in prison. If laws against attempted murder (as well as actual murder) resulted in stiffer sentences, I can’t help but think we’d do go a long way in solving the problem. It’s chilling to think about how many people who have committed and been convicted of heinous acts are walking the street right now.

And I’ll also point out—I can’t help it: a key part of the Democratic party’s electoral strategy is making sure that every one of these guys who happen to live in Florida has the right to vote for John Kerry.

To: Chris Fahey- I bring up the subject of the First Amendment in all seriousness. I and many of my colleagues believe that the Second Amendment helps secure the First. We “radicals” look on the 2nd as another vote, the vote of last resort. Sounds too harsh for you ?? Try this.
President Doofus doesn’t like you or your politics. As a matter of fact he doesn’t like the politics of people just like you….and he wants to silence you (and them) permanently. Unfortunately for you the Second Amendment doesn’t exist in your country. At this point you have two choices, leave the country of your birth or be buried in it…your choice ! Or try this one !
Dirt Bag Doofus (probably related to the Prez.) wants what you have and needs to know if you’re armed. You see Doofus is armed and he wants your property, your dignity, your wife/girlfriend, and your children. What he can’t steal he wants dead (only after he has his “particular” type of fun). Oh yeah, I forgot, he owns a stolen revolver but he is VERY skilled with a straight razor !!
Having read my previous posts you know that I am a retired Law Enforcement Officer. What you may not know is that these scenarios are quite real. The political one occurred in Guatemala, the “criminal” one occurred in Los Angeles County…I interviewed the criminal personally.
I don’t mean to put you on the spot but what would a reasonable man/woman do under these circumstances. I know that if I refused, or failed, to take action I could NEVER forgive myself…Never.
To repeat, without the Second Amendment the First Amendment is on borrowed time !

Thanks Martin, but, he’s not. In part because of me. This was before any laws that abusive husbands could still be prosecuted without the wife.

I imagine they will not get that voting law changed in time for the election this year. Unless of course they manage to sneak it in under some other bill.

Issues such as that should be brought directly to the ballot box and taken out of the hands of the politicians.
Another would be giving illegal and/or legal immigrants the right to vote.
I dare our politicians to let the American people vote on that one !

To: Chris Fahey- I bring up the subject of the First Amendment in all seriousness. I and many of my colleagues believe that the Second Amendment helps secure the First.

And most of us realize that the rest of the Western world has the same freedoms in the First Amendment without a Second Amendment.

Jack, gun control falls under the public safety domian of law. In fact, laws have been faced in cities which make it illegal to own handguns. Although you may live in Virgina, I would be willing to bet that right after the sniper attacks your political leaders would of easily passed a law banning the sell of any AR15’s.

Beagle, Cop killer bullets is a nickname given to armor priecing bullets that by their nature of design are readly able to go through armor protection. Check out link text,/a> It gives the laws and arguments. Additionally, the US has outlawed pumpkin ball slugs, cross cut bullets, and mercury tiped bullets to name a few.

Eric, You need to check your history. Gunpowder and bullets fall under intellegent property laws that have existed in this country since 1790. Therefore, the local, state, and federal governments have the right to regulate them.

P.S. Read state governors state of emergency laws. Any and all items may be regulated. If the Dems. Governors really wanted to do a one up manship on the republican party, they could use the terrorist high alert status to declare these weapons and all ammunition sells illegal for x amount of days or until the treat goes back to low.

V. Edward Martin,
I think you just outlawed knives.

Samaritan, the idea of either of your two scenarios ever occurring in the United States to such a degree that we need to arm the population strikes me, as I stated above, as delusional. As ceejayoz rightly mentioned, plenty of civilized & advanced countries have excellent free speech rights and an unarmed population. Comparing the United States to Guatemala is practically an insult to our country’s great democratic heritage and our core values of freedom and liberty for all. Do you really think that our country is as desperate and corrupt as Guatemala?

Free countries are free because the people beleive to their core that people deserve to be free, and good Americans trust other Americans to hold those beliefs as well. We have a government that we choose through peaceful elections, and a firm tradition of a non-political military establishment. No amount of personal armament will protect America from tyrrany if the people no longer believe in freedom or if the people no longer deeply trust their neighbors. If you ask me, the more the people arm themselves against imaginary Presidents who wants to take people’s wives by force, the more our core values of freedom and brotherhood deteriorate. Your world-view, to me, is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more you imagine that America is a country full of deadly enemies to you, and the more you arm yourself as a result of that perception, then the more fractured our country becomes.

-Cf

Ed Martin,
your re-write of the 2nd amendment would outlaw shotguns , muzelloading rifles, and some hunting handguns.Your vission of the law would seriously hamper law abiding hunters and shooters, and little else.I’m sure that wasn’t your intent, however writing laws is a very complex thing.
We have enough laws if liberal judges would enforce the ones we have.

Huh. And here I thought Congress passed laws. Or did I get my constitutional law all wrong? Why do we always blame a president for everything? Is it that we wish we had an all-powerful single leader?

I should also point out that Ed Martin’s Amendment doesn’t say anything about grenades, stun guns, and possible future weapons technologies such as lasers, nerve gas sprays, foams, radiation, etc. I don’t think specific technical language belongs in the constitution at all - it’s too ambiguous and difficult to draw the line, and, as the assault weapons ban proved, it’s impossible to ban specific things when sneaky people can always invent ways around those specifics.

I’d be happy, however, if we simply changed the Second Amendment to read that every American has the right to own a flint-lock rifle or a musket with a bayonet and/or a sword, and everything else is banned. That’d be fair, and it would probably be in line with what the Founding Fathers really wanted.

-Cf

I am not for the repeal of the second amendment like CF is, but I do think, like any other part of the constitution, it needs to be interpreted wisely. Free Speech, one of the most absolute of rights in this country, is regulated. The time, place, and manner of your speech can be regulated, even if you are free to say whatever you want if you comply.

Guns should be treated the same as speech. We don’t allow individuals to own fully automatic weapons for a reason. We ban certain kinds of ammunition for a reason: that is, to maintain a society where we can have gun rights, we have to limit the mass lethality of the weapons involved. On every constitutional principle we set limits as to how strictly we construe the principle, because otherwise things just don’t work. I oppose the NRA not because I don’t believe people should be able to own and use guns, but because the NRA is reckless in its opposition to gun control.

They don’t even want limits on who can own the weapons, really. Background Checks, which only function to keep weapons out of the hands of felons, are opposed by the NRA. Waiting periods, too. God forbid we let people cool down before we let them take possession of a weapon. And what’s this crap of “You can take this weapon from me when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!” I mean, don’t you get the sense that some people have really bad trust issues? The reality is crime and violence show up ten times more on the news than they do in real life. Day by day we are given the impression that our society is more violent than it really is. A lot of people have taken that to heart, unfortunately. Though I haven’t seen Bowling for Columbine, his message from what I’ve heard makes sense to me- the culture of fear is more lethal than the gun culture.

The NRA has made a business out of promoting fear. It wasn’t like that once. Even Michael Moore once belonged, as I understand it. It was simply a organization for people who owned firearms. But then the leadership changed.

I think the NRA is paradoxically the worst danger to gun rights out there. My feeling is they will push total gun freedom, an unreasonable goal giving the lethal character of all firearms, and stoke the culture of fear, until such time that there is a major violent incident in this country. Will we wait until there is an emotional backlash against guns in this country before we find a middle ground between those in favor of gun control, and those in favor of gun freedoms? I sure hope not.

CF:

I think it is disingenuous to say that those technologies are what the founding fathers wanted their citizens to have. Yes, it is what their citizens did have at the time, the absolute forefront of weapons technology at that time, but there is no evidence to indicate that is what they wished to limit future citizens to. It seems clear that by giving citizens access to all weapons technology available at that time, they would have advocated making future weapons technology freely available to the citizenry as well. The founding fathers WANTED our citizens to have the capacity, the right, and the duty to rebel and institute new government if their government ever became destructive of the basic rights of which all intelligent beings are endowed, and which governments are meant to secure for the people.

Also, I think your idea that trust and brotherhood are all that are necessary to secure freedom is rather naive, frankly. Democratic governments have been taken over in the past by dictators. Look to history: Julius Caesar and Augustus number among the first examples. Hitler would be a more recent one. As much as you might not like the idea of needing to stand armed against a potential future threat on our freedom coming from within our own government, Thomas Jefferson put it best: The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

You liberals are all right. Dumb ass Republicans don’t know anything.
Someone said above that “without the 2nd their is no 1st. What kinda of crap is that. If we want to protest, we protest. Well, we are put in pens, far away from everyone and yell at news cameras, but we are free to protest where we want.
If we want to organize anti govt. meetings or run an anti govt website, we can do that. Well, maybe, but in todays world, der Homeland Security will investigate and intimidate us. Put us on a list and watch us, but hey, we still have rights.
All western society except the U.S. has freedom of speech, they are better than the U.S. because they have banned guns. They can say whatever they want. I may just move there also. Of course, the fact those people are bullied, intiminated and often killed by their govts. for speaking out is kind of scary, but hey, they have free speech, they can say whatever they want.
I think if we just got rid of the whole Constitution, the world would be a better place to live. We should dump that outdated, unfair and dumb piece of work and replace it with this:

We, the governments people of this World are of one village. Govt. approved speech is granted to all. Guns are evil, only govt. shall have any firearm. All govt. elected officials will levy whatever taxes needed to compensate for those who do not wish to work. The govt. will provide you with all of your basic needs to survive.

Ridiculous? Yes. But just a few of the things that “We the People” are supposed to be protected from that have come true.

Stephen:

I agree (generally) with your idea that we need to limit the second amendment in a manner consistent with the limits placed on the first. Certainly the time, place, and manner of use of firearms should factor into our laws. I agree that there are places where guns should not be taken by the average citizen, such as commercial flights. I agree that there are manners in which guns should not be used, such as to rob liquor stores or other criminal acts. However, limiting who can own a gun or what kinds of weapons can be owned seem less analogous with these goals and more in line with censoring certain groups or the publishing of certain things… how would you feel about the safety of free speech if you were allowed to publish magazines all you wanted but books were flat-out illegal? How would you feel about the safety of free speech if you could publish whatever you wanted, but someone who had been in jail in the past was no longer free to publish anything?

If the problem you see with allowing everyone to have weapons without background checks is that they will get in the hands of convicted felons, then maybe what you really want to do is ensure that these felons stay behind bars longer so that they are not free and purchasing weapons in the first place. If I were you, I’d be much more concerned about their freedom to buy several tons of metal that can move up to 120 miles an hour, is semi-armored, can easily mow down pedestrians, and has the equivalent of four sticks of dynamite sloshing around in its gas-tank, with more of this explosive being given to anyone with a state-approved container. Especially since all you have to do to turn gasoline into something even worse is mix it with the right amounts of styrofoam. Of course, there is the whole matter of if any felon is out of prison again he’s supposedly paid his debt to society and no longer be a threat… or have we completely given up on the idea that criminals can be reformed and take their place within society again? If so, I find that interesting given the history of our own country and the nature of many of the men who were sent here from England to found it.

As for waiting periods, I really have to question their effectiveness to stop the crimes of passion you’re talking about. It seems to me that someone in the heat of anger is much more likely to grab a weapon close to hand… a normal kitchen-knife, perhaps… than he is to go buy a random gun if he’s never owned one before.

Tim:

Please don’t generalize so much about who is on what side. I’m a liberal, and I’ve taken a pretty hardline stance in this discussion in favor of the second amendment.

Jarin, I mention liberals in this post only because “most” liberals have this utopian dream that if all guns were banned then (1) all criminals would give up their guns and (2) our govt would never do anything to harm its people, so we have no reason to fear it.
WE are not the govts. people, the govt is supposed to be ours.

Todays Republicans know and understand this a little bit better, even though they too are guilty of doing the same thing on this and other issues. All because their party is in control and of course “in the name of national security.”

Assault Weapons Ban expires today
Admittedly, this bill left much to be desired but it was a start.

Perhaps, the Bush administration knows something we don’t; this will produce positive results with increased employment:

The funeral industry for burials, the lumber industry for caskets, the chemical industry for the embalming fluids.
The floral industry, for funeral flowers. Perhaps, FTD can invent a new holiday, Gun Day.
More cops on the beat. As more cops are killed on the streets, new ones must be hired and trained to take their place.
More small business openings. As the demand for assault weapons increases, new retail stores will open to meet the demand and those stores will hire people to man the counters.
More manufacturing jobs. As demand increases, the gun makers will need to hire more workers to make more guns.
Reduction in the number of abortions. As more people are killed, expectant mother’s will recognize the need to maintain the population.
Increased church attendance. Organized religion will be happy to welcome new members who seek solace when family members are murdered.
Local news. Nothing better for ratings than interviews with grieving families.
Reduction of suburban deer populations. What better way to use an Uzi or MAC 9 than ridding your neighborhood of those pesky critters who eat the lawn on which you spend so much time and money.

I’m sure many more industries will benefit when the ban expires today. Add to the list.

Stephen-

We don’t allow individuals to own fully automatic weapons for a reason

Not true. In my State it is legal to own and possess fully automatic firearms subject to obtaining a federal license for such. Georgia is also a “class III” state that I know of but I’m sure there are others.

As for the second amendment I see absolutely no reason to modify and amend it. Gun rights are and have been limited by the States as well as local ordinances. Just look at New York’s gun laws as an example. And that’s how it should be according to our Constitution and make sense given that my gun needs in a rural area are different than CF’s needs in a populated urban center.

Please tell me why gun control needs to be a federal issue?

George: It is a federal issue because it is a “feel good issue” and politicians know they can make millions off of it. Both sides of the aisle have groups which get millions of dollars a year, and they know that money will be funneled back to them.
When it is money vs. common sense, money will win everytime, how else would we get thoughts like these:

-Ban all guns, then the criminals won’t have any.
-The common people don’t need a way of protecting themselves, but my bodyguards need a way of protecting my elitiest butt.
-Guns kill people, the person who pulls the trigger is just a “victim” of society.
-Our government would never try to control us.
She shot and killed him to stop him from raping her? She should go to jail, she didn’t have to shoot him. The police would have been there when he was done raping her and could have taken care of her.

It’s money George, no common sense involved.

Tim:

Perhaps that is true, but framing this debate as if it’s solely an issue of liberals vs conservatives when you already have liberals on your side only serves to alienate those liberals who might otherwise stand with you on this issue. I would suggest that it would be more effective, and more in line with your apparent goals, to address the specifics of the world-views you take issue with and leave it to those present to judge if the description applies to them, whether they are liberal or conservative.

George: What is it about rural Georgia that makes you “need” superior weaponry to what I “need” in New York City? I don’t understand. Is it because the police would take to long to respond when the Cherokee attack? Is it because you are closer to the border with Mexico?

Jarin: I was being facetious in order to point out the quaintness of the second amendment. I am aware that the founding fathers didn’t want the people to own outdated silly weapons that were vastly inferior to the mainstream available. I am also aware that they never dreamed that it would be possible for a single person to, on a whim, shoot three other people in under a minute, much less 20 people. They never dreamed that a deadly-accurate multiple-shot firearm could be concealed in a purse or a pocket.

Today’s weapons aren’t just more advanced, they are qualitatively different things than what the Second Amendment was referring to. It’s simple numbers: the founding fathers gave each American the power to, after careful consideration, kill another person. They gave Americans the ability to defend their property from foreign attack. They did not even dream that they were giving every American the power to, at the slightest whim, spray a crowd of people with hot lead, or to bring a tiny weapon with them into stores and ports and schools. We may call today’s weapons “guns”, but they are so vastly different from even the wildest Revolutionary-era fantasy that we can legitimately call the difference “apples and oranges”.

Weapons technology is advancing at an amazing rate. We’ll have electronic weapons, tiny WMD devices and toxins, and all kinds of deadly personal weaponry in the next decade or so, stuff that can fit in a pocket and that can kill dozens or more as easily as one might turn on a flashlight. These things will fall into the wrong hands in a heartbeat. You second-amendment types will regret your position in 20 years, I guarantee it.

-Cf

Jarin: Thanks, your advise will be taken. My biggest problem, I guess, is that I do not have a “side” when it comes to a party. The only side I care about is the Constitution. I don’t like to see it being manipulated by either party. I will take your advise and try to express my opinions without the party stigma. Thanks

CF, you said “you second-amendment types will regret your position in 20 years, I guarantee it.”

We will only regret it if we don’t have the means to protect ourselves from the people or government because of people who think like that.
The founding fathers may never have dreamed about the weaponary we have today, but they also could never have dreamed that:
saying God in public places would be a crime; or that we would be unfairly taxed, which was a main component of the Rev. War; or that a hard working American citizen could be forced to move, without fair compensation, because of a stupid fish; or that Americans wishing to exercise their free speech rights would be forced into pens or protest zones; or that by simply criticizing the current president could get you a visit by der Homeland Security thugs.
Or maybe they did forsee what is happening today, and then created our Constitution, hoping it would be taken literally, instead of interpreted, so that the country would not fall into the mess it is in today.

CF-
You sarcasm aside, firearms are much more a part of everyday life in rural areas than they are in urban populations. For example, I typically keep a shotgun in my Jeep for use around the farm and seldom take it out even when venturing to town for a moon pie and an RC. A shotgun in a Jeep or truck around here is the rule and not the exception. For you to wield a shotgun on your daily jog down to Starbucks would definitely be the exception.

Also, when you live in a rural setting you do have additional security concerns that you must protect against. What we call “walk ins” here are very rare, mostly because it is recognized that almost every house is armed. And yes, it would be at least several minutes before the county police could respond to our location. While my defense weapons of choice have always been a good dog and a shotgun, I do have a friend who uses electronic censors and an AK-47 with a Russian night scope. To each his own….

Our county police recognize these facts as well. I took my concealed weapons permit from them, and they are very positive towards law abiding citizens carrying guns.

You have no need for guns where you live and , therefore, wish you could repeal the 2nd Amendment. Guns are a standard part of my life and I am glad that the 2nd Amendment protects my rights to gun ownership. The beauty of our current system is that states and local governments have the responsibility to regulate gun ownership, and I see no need for the feds to be in the mix. Especially when they pass meaningless and stupid laws such as the Assault Weapons Ban.

Miguel,
Bush is Chief Butt; therefore, the bucks stops and start at his mouth. Every job has it’s drawbacks.

Cf,
Although I see your point about high tech weapons, but do you honestly believe in that kind of gloom and doom? From somebody that does not own a weapon, I will never give up the right for all Americans owning a real weapon that will allow them to protect themselve. However, I can only hope that our society is intellegent enough to not allow WMD’s loose on our streets. The fact that weapons like 20mm gatling guns, rocket launchers, and other WMD’s weapons are restricted from the public.

However, I do believe that our nation needs to allow private citizens to own the weapons of their choose. Assault rifles are cool to collect if you like them. Their appeal is like that of any other trinket people collect. Properly stored and used these weapons are fun to shoot for it is only natural for man to want to destory things.

Where I do draw the line is when someone uses a weapon to harm someone. Restricting this group of people from having access to or quickly catching them is part of our right as a society to ask from our government. The problem lies in the fact Congress does not have the balls to totally rewrite the entire rules and regulations governing gun ownership.

Home Safety: The storage of a personal assault weapons and ammunition supplies should be allowed only when the person agrees to yearly inspections of storage facilities (i.e. Gun Vault) Additionally, the local sheriff and fire department cheif would have current knowledge of persons storages.

Hunting and Sportsmen Shooting: Any fireing devise that can interchange ammunition with any personal assault riffle must be registerd with the local sheriff. Storage in home under lock and key. Subject to announced inspections only twice in five years.

Guns were not the problem in this issue 10 years ago. What I can’t understand is why the republicans changing from being this America we will protect you to a group that want to allow everyone who wants to become a terrorist just go to your local gun dealer and purchase one or two AK 47’s.

CF:

It is precisely because I am aware of weapons development that I consider your position about guns to be misdirected. As just one example of currently unregulated WMD that any citizen may freely access without permit: Gasoline + Styrene (aka the main component of Styrofoam) + Benzene (a common gasoline additive) = NAPALM. Yes, that’s right, all that is necessary to make napalm is to dissolve styrofoam in gasoline until the mixture is saturated.

Yes, human potential for destruction is greater now than it ever was during the early days of America. But one car on a drunken joyride through a populated area can also take out more people than the personal weapons available in our founding fathers time, and I don’t hear you calling for the banning of automobiles because they grant citizens too much destructive power for any one human being to have over his fellow citizens. It is this sort of paradox in anti-gun thinking that clearly demonstrates it is not the means to commit violent acts of destruction that must be dealt with, those we will have with us always. It is the people who commit those acts that must be dealt with. Not the tools they use.

To: Chris Fahey- Eerrr Uuhhh, Chris…I think that you just seriously shot yourself in the foot. You seem to support “…our country’s great democratic heritage and our core values of liberty and freedom…” and then immediately denigrate that VERY freedom and liberty. What’s it gonna’ be big guy, core values of freedom and liberty or the destruction of freedom and liberty? What is it that you truly embrace? I mean that it seems that you are having an Orwellian moment here ! “Slavery is Freedom” and all that insane stuff !!
To: Ceejayoz- You offer a VERY odd staement, you say that the rest of the Western World has freedoms without the Second Amendment. If your statement is true (and it’s not) then you should have NO problem with a repeal of the First Amendment…Right !!?! Afterall, using your logic (such as it is) the rest of the Western World does not possess the First Amendment and still has freedom…Right ?? So, First Amendment, Second Amendment, what the hell, let’s just trash the Bill Of Rights because we’ll still have Western Freedoms. Oh and by the way, you seem like the perfect customer for some swampland that I have for sale…trust me, it’s a GREAT deal !! Call me!

I read all the posts here, and character asassinations aside, I still haven’t seen one good reason why I need to own an assault weapon.
I don’t disaggree with George about his rural needs to own a shot gun. I don’t disaggree with any ones 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Through all the bull you guys are slinging around I still don’t know why I need to own an AK-47.
Can sombody please answer that?

Rocky, I answered this in my original post. To reiterate:

“It is true that in truly peaceful times there is no need for assault weapons in a civilian populace. I agree with that. But I think it is foolish to expect people to wait until times are not peaceful to be allowed to obtain more powerful weaponry. The ability of the people to buy weapons of any sort must be preserved, I think, if they are to maintain the capacity to alter or abolish a government gone wrong, as our founders maintained is both their right and duty. It is an insurance against the future, more than a need for the present. A final insurance to keep free men from ever becoming slaves.”

tim…

you seem to keep saying…”We will only regret it if we don’t have the means to protect ourselves from the people or government because of people who think like that.”

you know….i agree that all americans have the right to own a gun if they want one. however, most cases show, (ie Waco TX) that when the gov’t comes for you…they come with much bigger guns than you have.

as for…”Or maybe they did forsee what is happening today, and then created our Constitution, hoping it would be taken literally, instead of interpreted, so that the country would not fall into the mess it is in today.”

people are going to use the document to their goals…they do it with the Bible every single day.

Well said Jarin. That was beautiful.
And Rocky? YOU do not need to own an assault weapon. But others who do feel the need to own one, should be allowed to. It is not about hunting or target shooting. The 2nd Amendment is all about what Jarin said above.

There is a quote from playwright Anton Chekhov that I’ll paraphrase here: If there is a gun on the mantlepiece in the first act, it must be fired in the second.

Yes, guns don’t kill people, people kill people, in the moral sense. Guns however are the means by which some people’s moral impulses are carried out physically. Assault weapons have only one purpose- to serve mass killing. So if assault weapons are made available in the mass market once more, There will be a second act to follow the first act of getting the gun. The play will probably be a tragedy.

Rocky-

Because when you start with your logic you don’t just slip down the slippery slope, you tumble down it.

Define an Assualt weapon in salient feature terms and without refering to model numbers or manufacters. An AK-47 is no different than an M-14 or an M-1, two very collectable weapons. It’s also no different than the Ruger Mini-14 or the Browning BARs, two very popular sporting rifles.

The assault weapons ban attempted to do this by listing mfg model numbers but the manufacturers were able to just change the model numbers or slightly modify a part. Kerry got in trouble on this recently when he supported a ban on all shotguns with pistol grip stocks not aware that many standard shotgun stocks are considered to be pistol grip.

It sounds so simple to say I thee ban all AK-47’s, one of several Kalashinikov models. In practice it is all but imposible to do.

Again, the Assault Weapons Ban was a lie. It didn’t work and it didn’t prevent anyone from buying a semi-automatic assault style weapon. The only reason it is being talked about on this day of sunset is to prime the pump for a new ban that will severely restrict gun owner’s rights. In that regard today is a bad day for gun owner’s rights.

Jarin,
No offence meant but do you really think that when and/or if the time comes to revolt, that 250 million people will stand up with their AK-47s or M-16s whatever and take down the oppressive government of this country?
Have you heard of Ruby Ridge or Waco or even Wounded Knee.
All of those folks had gripes too.

Rocky:

Honestly, I don’t know if they would or not, if that time were to ever come in this country. Sadly, our citizenry has become far more complacent than they once were, thanks in large part to “modern” factory-style schooling from a young age which has actually retarded human development. However, without the ability to own such weapons they would not even have the choice to revolt. And I am not in favor of removing that choice, that final check on the power of our government. I choose to believe that, if pushed far enough, even citizens as complacent as ours will find some things worth fighting for.

George, since you have shown yourself to be reasonable and flexible, and that you can respect a place like New York’s decision to control firearms very strictly, then I will respect your culture’s choice to do the opposite. You must think we’re delusional for walking around unarmed in the big city. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

In any event, I am far, far more in support of strict gun crimes enforcement than I am in favor of gun ownership restrictions. Do I sound like a Republican when I say that? I may sound like one, but that’s only because the NRA has made the “Enforcing existing gun laws” spin so attractive that nobody appears to question whether or not they really mean it. Do they?

Historically the right likes to accuse the left of being lenient on criminals, and lately that has turned into criticizing the left of being lenient on people who commit crimes with guns. The image is supposed to be of the stereotypical bleeding heart liberal crying “Noooo! you can’t throw away this fine youngster just because he robbed a store with a gun!”

But isn’t it the NRA who has for decades opposed increased punishments for people who commit crimes with guns? This page sure makes it sound like the NRA thinks the tough laws are unjustified (“Congress can`t make it much more illegal for criminals to have or to use guns … any guns.”) The rest of the NRA site, however, proudly proclaims that under Bush gun crime prosecutions are up. Does the NRA really want gun crime prosecutions to go up, in particular for violations such as carrying a gun illegally, buying and selling guns illegally, or transporting guns illegally, or owning illegal guns? I can’t see any evidence whatsoever that they do. Does the NRA support the laws listed on the page above, or are they mocking them? I can’t tell, they seem deliberately ambiguous on that.

The NRA seems far, far more interested in repealing gun laws or in exploiting gun law loopholes than they are in enforcing them.

There’s a lot of talk from the right about “enforcing existing gun laws”, but honestly can anyone find a page on the NRA site where they specifically call for any gun laws to be enforced more rigidly? Every GOP-supported increase in gun prosecutions or mandatory sentencing I’ve ever seen has been part of some bigger, stupider bill having to do with the dumb War on Drugs.

“Enforcing existing gun laws”… Hmm, sounds good. Where’s the beef?

-Cf

Rocky: Half of the 250 million people are dependent on the govt. in some way or want the govt. in total control. Of the remaining 125 million people, half of those own weapons. About 30 million of those care and love these country enough to fight and die for her way of life. The odds weren’t much better during the Rev. War.

Ruby Ridge and Waco? It makes me sick that Americans would sit by while innocent Americans were slaughtered. As these things begin to happen more and more, you will see a change in the people.

CF-

I’m always reasonable! The NRA is over the top in many of its lobbying efforts, but so are the people on the other side. The latest attack from the gun control people is to sue gun manufacturers for product liability if someone uses their gun in a crime. A handful of these suits have already been settled and it is forcing States to pass laws prohibiting such suits.

The NRA does fight most all federal gun control legislation as they have challenged many laws based upon the 10th Amendment in addition to the 2nd. That might be a source of some of the inconsistencies you detect.

The NRA is not the devil it is portrayed to be. It does play hardball, but others in the game are playing hardball too.

Samaritan, you appear to have missed the point of my post.

The rest of the Western world have the same First Amendment freedoms we do built into their own constitutions. They don’t have the Second Amendment, yet their First Amendment style rights are perfectly intact.

I’m not sure where you got that they don’t have First Amendment style rights…

Here’s an interesting report about the NRA’s history in the area of supporting increased enforcement of gun laws.

Here the NRA wants more enforcement:

It’s a moral crime for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Janet Reno and a host of Federal officers and prosecutors to fail to enforce the law. It’s evil. And when innocent blood flows, it’s on their hands.
—Wayne LaPierre
—Executive Vice President
—National Rifle Association
—in American Rifleman

Oh, but on the other hand they don’t want more enforcement:

[More laws] gives jackbooted Government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property and even injure and kill us.
—Wayne LaPierre
—Executive Vice President
—National Rifle Association
—in a 1995 fundraising letter

The GOP agrees:

As recently as February 3 of this year [2000], Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID), a recipient of the NRA’s Legion of Honor award, described President Clinton’s plan to enhance ATF resources as a “charade” that would “unleash 500 more abusive ATF agents on the American public.”

Both pro- and anti-gun groups are notorious for presenting only the facts that support their side, and the paper I linked to above is no exception. Can anyone find another site or article that makes the case from the other side? Something that shows the NRA taking a stand, a specific stand, on the issue of demanding that the government investigate gun crimes with greater vigor and to prosecute them with more intensity? I’m not talking about doublespeak or empty platitudes like the first quote above, I mean something that says “We support X law and we think we should pass X bill to spend X dollars to enforce it better”.

-Cf

Oh heck, I might as well add to the turmoil here.

I completed a long military career and have also been a gun owner for most of my life. I learned to properly handle firearms as a kid, have owned several rifles, shotguns and pistols over the years and still keep a handgun of fairly serious caliber in my home.

I’m neither a criminal nor a gun-nut. This state requires that all gun owners be registered and I am registered, though the only real value of that requirement is to provide revenue to the state, in my opinion.

If someone invades my home and I conclude that my life and the lives of my family are in jeopardy, I still have the right to dispose of the attacker. If this state ever takes away that right, as one of its major cities did, I will probably move to another state where my right to personal safety will be recognized.

I have neither the need nor desire to own a high-powered rifle but I have the freedom to buy one if I choose to do so. While the rifle doesn’t mean anything to me, the freedom to buy it certainly does.

Nobody really knows what an assault weapon actually is and the ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ was simply a piece of feel-good legislation that politicians could point to to prove that they really, really don’t want to see people murdered. Well, I’m pretty sure that the only people who do want to see people murdered are those who violate existing gun laws anyway.

Legislators feel they must show the folks back home that they are doing something and this is a prime example of that sort of meaningless policy making. Nobody wants to see innocent people get shot, but the Washington solution is to outlaw weapons that look especially sinister, solely to demonstrate their compassion. It’s really pretty cynical when you think about it.

I have a friend who collects knives. His hobby doesn’t appeal to me at all but that’s his thing. A lot of those pieces of cutlery look absolutely evil and I have no doubt that they could do some pretty serious damage in the hands of a criminal. Of course most of the knives in my kitchen could also. As far as I know, nobody has (yet) proposed outlawing his collection, but the same logic applies, doesn’t it? After all, thousands of innocent people are stabbed to death every year in this country. Surely we must do something!

We could also talk about motor vehicles, coat hangers, two-by-fours, rope, pesticides, and dozens of other potential tools for homocide. To be really safe, perhaps we should just ban all of them. Don’t mention that to the folks in Congress, okay?

CF:

Your quotes do not support your thesis. The quote you offer as evidence that the NRA does not support enforcement speaks not against enforcing existing laws on the criminal use of weaponry, but rather against the creation of new laws which take away guns from the citizens.

Tim, George, Jarin,
Here is the point I was trying to make. The government of this country has the most powerfull military in the world.
And they know how to use it.
George, my definition of an assault weapon is one that has the little switch that says “Full Auto”.

Rocky-

No problem. You need a Federal Class III license to own one with the little “full auto switch” plus live in a State, County, and City that allows them. That’s been the case since the 1930’s I think.

The Assault Weapons Ban that just expired did nothing to full auto weapons. I repeat, it had NOTHING to do with full auto weapons.

Another joke I heard on the radio news today was Kerry saying today you could once again buy an assault weapon thanks to the ban expiring. What he doesn’t say is that you could have bought one yesterday and the day before and the day before. That’s because pre-ban weapons flooded the market back in 1994 and were thereby exempted from the law.

The Assault Weapons Ban wasn’t a ban. It did nothing, and now that it is gone nothing has changed.

Rocky:

And like all governments, that military is made up of a portion of its citizens. Should the rights of the People be abridged by our government to the point that revolution is actually warranted, it would seem logical to anticipate that a good portion of that military would stand on the side of the rebels.

Jarin, good point, but it does specifically demonize those who would enforce gun laws. The ATF is constantly demonized by the NRA. That’s where the quote clearly takes a firm stand against law enforcement. The term “jackbooted” is meant to suggest that the ATF’s law enforcement agents are the equivalent of Nazis.

-Cf

Where I live in Arizona you can rent an UZi at a firing range. They also have a 50 caliber. Also here we have a concealed weapons licence that only requires you take a course on gun safety and meet the minimum requirements.

CF:

You’re stretching the facts here. The jackbooted quote clearly suggests that the continued push to remove guns from the hands of their legal owners through legislation is fascist. It does not, however, take any stand against the enforcement of laws against actual criminals who misuse their weapons. This is no demonization of law enforcement, it is a rhetorical device meant to persuade others against the enactment of new laws to remove guns from the hands of their legal owners.

The only statement you quoted that was directly made against the ATF is the assertion that its agents are abusive towards legal owners of firearms. Are you sure this is a meritless charge? It hardly seems a demonization, and would not be the first government agency whose agents have been described in such terms.

Trying to use these characterizations as proof that the NRA is against the enforcement of laws against criminals who use guns in the commission of their crimes is illogical. All it proves is that they are against the creation of new laws which make law-abiding citizens into criminals simply because they possess firearms of certain types, and that they are against ATF enforcement agents who treat all gun-owners as criminals. Neither of these seems an unreasonable position to take, let alone a demonization of law enforcement.

To: Ceejayoz- I didn’t miss the point of your post, YOU missed the point of your post. I will clarify, pay attention…The “rest of the western world” does not have First Amendment rights (since they don’t have the First Amendment), they don’t even have First Amendment “style” rights. England, a nation that I much admire, has from time to time stopped T.V and Radio broadcasts as well as the printing of some newspaper stories. In the United States this would be referred to as a violation of the “Prior Restraint” doctrine.
By actual definition a “Right” is yours to enjoy….as in “The Right of the People” etc., etc. Now if you will kindly answer my original question. Since the “Western World” doesn’t have First Amendment rights (but “still enjoys them” anyway) why don’t we simply repeal the First Amendment. Afterall your logic dictates that it is unnecessary !!
To: Chris Fahey- Re: your statement that you doubted that the types of crimes that I described would occur with sufficient frequency to justify the Second Amendment….This is going to be Ssooo much fun ! How frequent do these types of horrific crimes have to occur prior to getting your support for the Second Amendment. Please give me an exact number. We discussed political assassination and the butchering of innocent women and children by criminals. Just exactly how many of these crimes would you support prior to allowing a Second Amendment in the “Nation of Chris Fahey ?? Please think this over carefully, you have got to know by now that another shoe is about to drop !!! :)

Jarin, I never said that “NRA is against the enforcement of laws against criminals who use guns in the commission of their crimes”. I said they are against the enforcement of gun laws. Interstate trafficking, scraping off serial numbers, stuff like that.

-Cf

CF:

What part of the statements you have quoted do you believe in any way supports the idea that they are against such enforcement? All you have cited is a supposed demonization of the people who enforce such laws, a demonization which is in fact rather mild and merely accuses the agents of that agency of being abusive, and an ardent condemnation of new and more restrictive legislation in the future relating to gun ownership. None of their statements seem to condemn enforcement of interstate trafficking, laws against removal of serial numbers, or “stuff like that”.

Does anyone know if John Kerry had anything to do with this 10 years ago ? I heard today he helped set it up to expire.
If he did … how can he blame Pres.Bush for the law expiring ?

Please don’t tell me that he can just because he can blame Bush for everything.

I believe I also heard that Bush asked that Congress work on keeping the law in effect.

Okay, Jarin. My point was to ask someone to find any shred of evidence on the NRA site to support the claim that they are in favor the stricter enforcement of existing gun laws. That’s all I really wanted. Their rhetoric is contradictory.

-Cf

Dawn- I hear your point loud and clear. However, it appears that Kerry CAN blame Pres. Bush for absolutely everything. At this point in time the Democratic Party is in a permanent state of opposition. Pres. Bush supports Plan X, the Dems oppose Plan X, and so it goes….

cf-

The fact that you are for the abolition of the 2nd amendment makes perfect sense to me.

Are you consistant enough to advocate your government being disarmed as well?

Stephen,

Assault weapons have only one purpose- to serve mass killing. So if assault weapons are made available in the mass market once more, There will be a second act to follow the first act of getting the gun. The play will probably be a tragedy.

What is an assault weapon? If two guns fire the same amount of bullets yet one is an assault weapon and the other is not isn’t that a little contradictory? All guns are people killers. Almost all modern handguns are semi-auto— the same rate of fire as these so-called assault weapons… It’s a labeling ploy used to demonize and ban.

I have owned about a dozen guns throughout my life, and golly, I’ve never shot a single person yet.

Presently, I legally own a Russian SKS that has a folding bayonet knife on it. The previous owner, a former Hmong Col. in Vietnam used to hunt wild boar with it locally. What’s more if I take that bayonet off it will be illegal!

Technically it’s grandfathered in as a curio/relic. It’s just a rifle.

But you’re right, sometimes I can hear it calling to me from the mantle. “Pick me up. …Shoot. Shoot. Shoot. hee hee hee.”

Rob
Your absolutley right with the bible quote. That whole “holier than thou” crap is a big reason why I am an atheist.
I am aware that our military is the most powerful in the world, I was part of it for nine years. But our military is (as of now) an all volunteer force (which is why there are so few liberals in it), with no allegience to a particular party. So as long as we aren’t forced to fight guns with paper, we still would have a chance to get America back.

And Rocky, your definition of an assault weapon is what the Dem. party want you to think it is.

Eric wrote:
> Are you consistant enough to advocate your
> government being disarmed as well?

You’ll have to explain this one further, Eric. I never said we should repeal the Constitution itself, which very clearly outlines our government’s power to raise armies in order to “provide for the common defense”.

Tim wrote:
> But our military is … an all volunteer
> force … with no allegience to a
> particular party.

You are absolutely right, Tim. The US military may lean to the right politically, while I lean to the left, but I still trust the US military very very deeply. If a future President goes insane and orders pogroms, I have no doubt that our military will refuse those orders and that our system will smoothly remove that President and his cronies through constitutional means. In fact, Nixon once ordered bombing in Laos while having drinks late one night, and the generals literally ignored his order, telling him that the weather was bad.

I have great respect, trust, and faith in the US Constitution, the institutions of our civilian government, the sometimes wacky but generally steady wisdom of our voters, and the decency and stability of our military. That is why I honestly don’t fear the government enough to feel any need to arm myself against possible future tyrrany - nor do I understand the fears of those who do. I’m serious, the idea that we should own weapons in order to protect us from future tyrrany still strikes me as a paranoid delusion or a “Red Dawn”-type adolescent fantasy.

-Cf

Tim,
Let me get this right. Democrats are for gun control.
My difinition of assault weapons is full auto.
You blame Democrats for wanting assault weapons leagalized.
I’m confused.

Eric,

I have a ruger 10-22 leaning in the corner next to the patio door. Its a semi-auto that funtions EXACTLY the same as the “so called assult weapons”, Its crying out to me ; shoot! shoot! shoot!
I wonder if thats because it’s the most popular squirrel rifle in Americia, hunting season opens tommorow, and I don’t live in the “crime ridden utopia” of a big city ?
Now just to shut it up, I’ll be forced get up early..fix a pot of Folgers, ( dammnit no starbucks here to jog to)..I’ll have to walk down my lane to my back-40 woodlot and set on a stump watching the sun rise through the hickorys on the ridge…I’ll have to listen to that noisey flock of turkeys, they make a racket every AM ( If there was only a subway train drownd out that noise)…then the geese will start, and those 3/4 grown fawns running through dry leaves…that makes the squirrels start chattering and I’ll have to shoot a couple for dinner just to shut that damn rife up..shoot!…shoot!…shoot!

It sucks being a country boy…If I was only smart enough to live in ” utopia” !!

Beagle,
Pretty good for a country boy, the real difference is that your gun don’t hold a banana clip. Course if you had that many squirrels in your back yard you may wany an assault rifle. However, the dwellers in “utopia of a big city” may need them for the rats.

As the sales man told me, there are clips available for the Ruger 223. They just don’t recomend them

Beagle-

I have a Ram Tec 30 rounder for the 10/22 if you need one!

There was a guy on last night saying that the Assault Weapons Ban had prevented 45,000 deaths. How?

The ban TEMPORARILY inflated prices of the ban guns. Before the ban you could get an old Chinese SKS for about $60US. When the ban went into affect the price went up to about $250 bucks, but came back down to less than $200 or so over the past few years. A 30 round clip still goes for $20 or less. The prices didn’t stay up because excess supply was imported prior to the ban.

Last week you could go to any shop in America and still get your favorite “assault weapon”, you just couldn’t get them on the cheap like before. THERE WAS NO BAN ON THE TRANSER OF GUNS ALREADY IMPORTED OR PRODUCED. So how can anyone claim that 45,000 lives were saved because of the ban if the banned guns were legally available the whole time?

The next stupid thing was that the terrorist buy American “Assault Weapons.” BS. Why would they buy our over priced 1950’s SKS or Norinco stuff when they could smuggle the cheap brand new, full auto AKs (they make them in Afghanistan) for pennies on the dollar?

And that goes for the drug dealers as well. What’s a few AK’s added to their next shipment of coke? They’re already breaking the law.

Say goodbye to a BS law. This is what you get when Congress gets into the gun control business.

Henry,
The ruger 10-22 comes with a 10 round clip, before the ban deal they in fact did sell 50 round clips for them. I think some guys liked to shoot a bunch of cans or something without reloading?…The 10 round clip allows me to not have to carry any extra ammo rattling around in my pocket…I seldom shoot more than 2-3 rounds hunting.
But if someone gets a kick out of going to a range and shooting a bunch of cans off a fence-rail, why should I care ? Everyone where I live owns guns, the crime rate is next to zero.
The gun ban was a silly law that did nothing to stop crime.
I have lots of friends that are Ind. or Dem. that live in big citys, Hell..I even stocked one of my ponds with fish so they could bring their kids over fishing, or pick berrys/ mushrooms or just walk in the woods.
I once was a democrat before radical left-wingers took over the party.

Henry…bring the wife and kids over, let-em fish or sompin, we’ll have a beer and I’ll “splain” it all to you.

Thats my story, and I’m sticking to it !!

Rocky, Sorry about that, I will try to clear up what I believe.
I do not think that the Democrats want gun control, true Democrats are good people. I was just saying that gun control is a very liberal idea and is very anti Constitution. I am not saying liberals are the only bad groups, neocons are guilty also, gay marriage amendment. I am just saying that our rights are being taken from us everyday, by both parties, and it has to stop, not accelerate. If we give up our right to bear arms, I guarantee it will accelerate.

Cf: Your “government is innocent and is the answer to all things” fantasy is admirable. I mean, the idea that we could be overly taxed, detained without question, arrested for disagreeing with our president, kicked off our land, having your wife and son killed by the FBI because you actually thought you had property rights and was protecting them, watching all your friends and 18 children being murdered and burned to death by the federal government or being detained and threatened for personal beliefs, is being pretty paranoid and delusional I guess. BUT IT IS HAPPENING NOW!!!

Beagle, I agree. I to like to fire the weapons at targets and such things. However, I have to draw the line when some idiot use a gun instead of his fists to settlte a fight. While both can do damage, a bullet is just to inpersonal. That is why I stated I would register bullets. If you buy them and use them correctly you have no problem. However, if you are dumb enough to give them to some that uses it in a crime than you deserve what law says. Any gun would just be a fancy stick if it was not for bullets. Therefore, it is in everybodys best interests if we can some how keep the bullets out of crooks hands.

cf-

If citizens cannot be trusted with guns why should the police have guns?

Eric, police can carry a gun only when they are educated to do so. Most citizens fall way short of this type of training or are you advocating for more training for the average citizen?

I scanned the 99 previous posts but will apologize in advance if someone else has already pointed this out and I just missed it.

A new article was posted today at factcheck.org that reviews the newest moveon.org PAC ad regarding the expiration of the ban.

NOTOTH, good shot. However, fact check left out the fact the old model assault rifles could be easily converted to fully auto with only a few minor adjustments.

Henry,

Eric, police can carry a gun only when they are educated to do so. Most citizens fall way short of this type of training or are you advocating for more training for the average citizen?

The Police are trained on how to use a gun and many police would fall into the category I am about to compare them to… Most gun enthusiasts are pretty well trained themselves. I think that the more people that get firearms training the better. I find that most anti-gun people I meet have in fact never fired a gun. They are in fact afraid of guns. Guns are something to be respected not feared.

Eric,
I to believe in fire arms training and the fact that some anti-gun activists have never fired a gun. My question to you and other gun owners is how do we keep bullets out of the hands of crooks? Pulling a triger is easy while beating a man to death requires a lot more anger.

Any weapon is rendered ineffective once the bullets are removed. By registering bullets in a double wall protective system, Americans can enjoy shooting the weapon legally. Those people who than wish to use these weapons illegaly will just be easier to catch.

Henry, your comments about regulating bullets reminds me of a comedy routine that I heard several years ago from comedian Pat Paulsen.

He said that we shouldn’t outlaw guns, just bullets. That way, those who talk about the “thrill of the hunt” could still enjoy their sport. After all, what could be more thrilling than to sneak up on a grizzly bear with an empty gun?

NOTOTH,
As for the joke with the grizzly bear, only an idiot would hunting without a weapon.

My question is how can we as a responsible society protect average citizens from people like the DC Sniper. With bullets being registered under a double wall system, the snipers could of been track down in hours instead of weeks. Now, I’m no Enstien, but I do believe public safety over rules one’s individual rights ( see public safety domain laws).

Henry,

You are aware that in order to completely regulate bullets you would have to regulate all of the reloading products available for purchase not to mention all of the reloading products already in circulation in the hands of private individuals?

If bullets were banned altogether tommorrow I know thirty or so people in my city alone who can put some together for me. Those are just the people I know.

Not to mention the blackmarket that would immediately crop up. Of course the police need one more prohibition to look after. Look at how well they keep drugs off the street.

No, regulating bullets is nonsense. Besides which it would make your 2nd amendment rights worthless without the right to have bullets for your gun.

Eric,
Although I like your virgerus debate to up hold the 2nd Admendment, you must surely realize that all bullet material is regulated right now by ATF. Today, you most either purchase a box of bullets that carry a serial number on the box or a bar code. Today, when you purchase a barrel of gun powder it has a serial number or a bar code. Purchase an item by cerdit card or cash and it can be traced fairly quickly by someone who knows where to look.

Since there are no laws stopping anyone from doing so I thought you may be for it. It is about the right to privacy.

Henery,
Did you know that crude gunpowder can be made from nothing more than pig-crap and charcoal ?

Did’nt think so.

Bullet bans and other silly things along those lines are meaningless bs…just FYI.

Beagle,
FYI; Cities don’t allow pigs.
Like it or not there will always be people who think guns are bad. Well at least until they need one.

I have no problem with most weapons allowed to be owned. Heck, if you are mad about a banana clip, than I should be a raging rabbit. You see the government won’t allow me to own the weapon of my choose. Even the international community tells me I can’t have it. So don’t go crying about registering a bullet.

Like I keep saying a double wall system will keep eyes out; however, when needed because a love one was killed the cops can quickly catch the dumb crook. Have you ever heard of “Smart Crook News”?

I dont understand all the fuss! Why are people more afraid of a gun because it looks mean?
Maybe the punishment should start fitting the crime then people wouldnt be so apt to break the law! Why would any one want to live in a world where only the government owns guns? If that were the case id be pretty scared , dont know about you!!!!!!! Kerry sucks and anyone who falls for his skeet shooting crap is just plain ignorant, hes doing that to win support so he can get in and then do whatever he wants with guns! Did Clinton ask for your opinion on the 94 ban or did he just do it? Think about it . He dang sure begged for your vote though!

I still have the “assault style” weapons I had before the ban, I had to take a few tests and obtain certain permits, and no-one has died because I own them, in fact there are three men in prison because I own them.

Here is an interesting factoid, in both Australia and Britain, which have total civilian weapons bans, gun crime has gone up. Why would that be?

Ynot,
Why to go! I’m not for honest people having weapons, I just think if a person don’t know the difference bewteen a weapon and a gun (Military), they should not be allowed to buy the bullets.

Henry
1- What business is it of the govt if I own bullets or a gun?

2- There are already to many unconstitutional laws that involve firearms now, but criminals still can get them when they want them. Having a bullet law like you say, will not stop them from getting bullets either.

I know you support the 2nd Amendment, so you should know what it is really for. Protection from tyranny. If the govt know who has the guns, weapons or bullets, then they know where to confiscate them.

Tim,
Sorry to inform you of this, but the premits and sells reciept you fill out gives the government a record of your weapon play. What the NRA won’t tell you is the fact that people from local police to ATF officers can go into any gun owner home, business, or bunker armed only a piece of paper. Forget if you have committed a crime. Forget that you had an allibuy(sp).

Any cop that has jurisdiction in your area can for just thinking that you may fit the profile of someone they are looking for can ask a judge for a search warrent. The only question asked by the judge will ask the cop “Were is your Probable Cause” Misha can back me up on this. That has been the law before 9/11, now its r”Reasonable Cause.”

Our government has always tried to control when and where someone can use a weapon. Even back at the begining, men would stand down their weapons when they would drink with each other (Socialize).

However, I do agree with you on your comment about laws. Did you know that laws are still on the books from over 150 years. Some are good because they protect people like you and me. Yet some are so dumb that you ever wonder why some person just wouldn’t do it. But, being honest as we all are, you have to admit that people like that live among us.

For that reason, I support a double wall bullet registation system for the following reasons.

1) Manufactor tracks control number for store bullet was sold to.
2) Store mainyains record of who bullet was sold to.

No one institution has control of registation system; however a cop can prove to a judge that the bullet was used in crime to obtain a warrent to the manufacture. After obtaining the name of the store and the evidence to prove it he will go to a second judge and ask for another warrent for that gun store only (currently every store in area can be searched).
The gun store owner than only has to release the name of the person who purchased the bullet. Cops than has the legal right to draw an arrest warrent. Total time 8 hours.

Currently, cops spend hours running down leads of all the names in the stores book which legally bought bullets. Meet the profile and you may have to answer questions. Laws do have to govern man from himself and others. Our nature shows us that. Stopping crime before it happens is limited to how you sell it. Strict laws, hard time, and ability to catch you quickly detour most of us from being dumb. Limiting the sell of bullets to those who are not to smart (PC Correct?) is a good idea. Armed robbery, moggings, assaults, and murder are real crimes to real people, man if left unleashed would surely become an animal again. Might makes right; Only the strong survive, sounds to me like Europe or the Middle East not America please! Fear of anything is bad, but not engaging in common sense solutions, well you decide.

Sorry, but stopping crime is sort of like fighting tyranny. Only when people realize that this earth has enough for all of us to live comfortable on her as long as we just just figure out how to live in harmony. Power over life and Death is a very wicked weapon or the days meal. Personal Knowledge and Common Sense should rule the day.

Henry, well said. But it is a dream, not reality.
As for buying guns, I can get anything I want, without a receipt right now. The laws covering this are not only unconstitutional, but avoidable. Especially for criminals. Why should it be easier for criminals to obtain them, but restricted for me.
The govt does not need to know and does not know of all who own firearms.
We will just have to disagree on whether it is common sense or not to give up our rights in order for security or safety. I do not think the country would be more secure if the govt had all the info and control all aspects of firearms and as far as safety, I would rather be able to prevent watching police draw a chalkline around a dead family member instead of them using the chalkline to track down the murderer.
I respect your opinions and all, I just disagree.

As I have said I’m a bit divided on this issue.

I do not have a problem with responsible gun ownership. Self defense is a reasonable argument put forth by Eric.

The difficulty I have is that ignoring the reality that if you saturate a population with weapons deadly violence rises. Not because there is more conflict, just deadlier results.

I find it ironic that a significant cache of the weapons Iraqi insurgents are using are American.

Bush Campaign Video

Bush Video

Tim,
I don’t think we are that far off, yet I must wnoder what you mean by “I would rather be able to prevent watching police draw a chalkline around a dead family member”.

That tells me that you believe in more police control?

Greg,

The difficulty I have is that ignoring the reality that if you saturate a population with weapons deadly violence rises. Not because there is more conflict, just deadlier results.

I agree to some extent. There is a definite responsibility for gun owners to keep their weapons

[Comment deleted for failing to abide our Critique, the Message, Not the Messenger rule — WatchBlog Manager]

The comment that law enforcement is in lock step across the country in supporting the awb is another liberal lie. I dont need my aks or my ars to go hunting. I need them to keep the gov in check, from becoming repressive. Thats what the 2nd amendment is about. My favorite saying “when liberals and democrats come for my guns you will get the ammunition first.” I could do no less so to preserve the rights of my children and the generations that follow. As a licensed collector I find it humourous that liberals and democrats think america was safer because I could not fix a bayonet on some rifles. The argument starts that these are the preferred weapons of criminals. Weak argument!!! the Honda Accord is the auto of choice to steal better ban those too. The real issue is freedom and freedom of choice. I will never give mine up. SO GET OVER IT.

Anyone who can truly argue that America is safer without weapons is just plain blind. How does disarming law abiding citizens protect them? How does one for gun control make a reasonable argument when most of their argument is based on criminal use of the gun? If the American people are disarmed they will be left defenseless to tyrannical governments, and more probable the criminal who is armed. A defenseless population is just that, they are at the mercy of the government and the criminals.

just to set the record straight “With an astounding return of over 15 percent of the mail-out surveys—far over the national average of such surveys—NACOP [National Association of Chiefs of Police] found the following sentiments being held by police chiefs and sheriffs: 88.7 percent do not believe a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons will help reduce crime; 97.4 percent believe criminals will still be able to obtain illegal weapons, even with a ban; and 90.4 percent believe law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase any rifle, pistol, or shotgun he or she chooses for self-protection or recreation. A similar survey was conducted in June 1993 by the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, which has approximately 11,000 members, who were polled by an independent, objective outside research firm. Of those officers surveyed, over 70 percent have been police officers for more than 5 years, and nearly two-thirds serve in urban areas where the threat of assault weapons is presumably highest. Some 65.3 percent thought stricter gun control would be the least effective of several options to reduce crime. And 96.4 percent strongly supported firearms ownership for self- protection.” For more information, try searching the Library of Congress’

I think what people are forgetting is why is gun crime so high? It is not the guns. Its the people that use them to committ crimes. Why do these people committ crimes? Shouldn’t that be the issue that should be addressed instead of “well guns should be strictly regulated.” Like someone said gun control laws have done nothing to protecto the public. Here in California with very strict gun laws the murder rate is still pretty much the same, but is slowly increasing again. Crime rate in California has been dropping since a 1980 peak despite there not being gun control laws. Also the supposively information used to pass the Roberti-Roos act is “missing or non-existent” in the California Attorney General’s office. There was even a memo that was leaked out that one of the officials of the Attorney General’s office said that there was not enough evidence to support that “assault weapons” were used in significant amount of crime. So what does this mean? It means the Attorney General along with other gun grabbing politicians LIED to the legislature about “assault weapons” being used in crime. So should i obey this law made by false information? Hell no. Also assault rifle? A term made by anti-gunners. It is a generic meaning that is used unwisely. Also for one the question asked, cosmetic features on a weapon have nothing to do with its functionality. If its semi-auto thats the way it will stay. The 2nd amendment? It protects our right own firearms indefintely. Read it carefully or ask an english expert and you will see.