Irony

Just wondering who wants mandatory ownership? I see no need to regulate sporting weapons and all I ask for on pistols is registration contingent on proff of proficiency. Like you have to prove you can drive a car before you hit the highway. Gimme that and I would be a happy guy. Have all the guns you want. I won’t get that of course but whatcha gonna do?

I voted no restrictions because I don’t think you had enough options. I think anyone should be able to have a gun in their home, but I think if you are going to carry a hand gun, or own a military style weapon, you should get a permit.

I am not talking about something very difficult. In Utah, for example, I got my license to carry a concealed weapon after an 8 hour course that cost 50 bucks.

I think that anyone should be able to own a gun in their home, but those who carry them in public should have to get a permit.

I don’t espouse mandatory ownership. What I call for is mandatory training on weapons to teach people to respect them and understand them.

I tire so of hearing someone say that he was killed by a firearm. Yea, the gun loaded itself, aimed itself and shot the person by itself, right? It couldn’t possibly have been the criminal USING the gun, right?

Look, it’s simple. When you’re fifteen, in the USA, you take driver’s ed in school - right? Well, how about when you are 16 or 17 you take firearm’s education in high school. It really isn’t so radical an idea.

And, actually, in IL you are allowed to own a weapon if you fork over the hundreds of dollars for a liscence, are awarded a liscense, do not keep any ammunition in the same county as the weapon and don’t live in certain cities that have outlawed any type of weapon larger then a steak knife. (Wilmette, IL is one such screwed up city.)

Maybe not quite THAT bad, but it’s basically illegal to own a firearm in Illinois as the laws stand now. Many of our laws contradict other laws in such a way that it is impossible to own a weapon without breaking at least one law.

@Jennifer:

What I call for is mandatory training on weapons to teach people to respect them and understand them.

You don’t need to train people to use the weapons though….just educate them about the effects of weapons…

The vast majority of shootings in America don’t come from automatic weapons. They come from concealed handguns.

It should be illegal to carry a concealed weapon. Handguns should not be allowed outside of the home.

The vast majority of hand gun related murders come from persons carrying illegal firearms. Making it illegal to carry a handgun will only take away the ability of the law abiding public to defend themselves.

Making it illegal to carry a handgun will only take away the ability of the law abiding public to defend themselves.

I have a better solution: Make handguns illegal in the first place. But thats never going to fly with the NRA.

I have a better solution: Make handguns illegal in the first place

no,because that completely ignores the situation he specifically referred tom which was people carrying illegal handguns. i dont necessarily agree with him, but the logic is sound. many problems come from people illegally possessing/carrying a weapon. if you make all the weapons illegal, all you have done is taken them from people who legally had them, and were law abiding. cause the criminals sure aint giving up their guns.

I’d get rid of handguns and their ammo. Yeah crooks can still get them if they try hard enough but if the defense is “Bad guys might buy it on the black market” then we should just legalize everything.

I’m ok with a permit for other gun ownership so long as the only prereq for the permit is the completion of a firearms safety course and it doesn’t cost more than about $50. Frankly though, I don’t think it’s constitutional to limit the public’s access to military grade rifles, despite all the harm that can be done. Just my opinion, but I always thought the clear intent was to let the citizenry arm itself so that if it had to overthrow the gov it could, and to me that means full auto, mortars, etc your own home militia is supposed to be legal. On the other hand, pistols are only good for crime, so get rid of em.

question:

Why are the same people who are in favor of the ability of Americans to carry around a gun (which is designed to kill people) also in favor of putting into jail people who use marijuana (which tends to make people less likely to kill other people)?

and i’m the wacko who thinks all guns should be destroyed. Maybe let the farmers have pellet guns.

Didn’t you see the Simpsons where they destroyed all the guns in the world? Aliens invaded and inslaved mankind using slingshots. We don’t want that to happen do we? LOL

That’s okay, I’ve got a board with a nail in it!

If we only let the farmers have guns, the farmers would… Dare I say it? RULE THE WORLD!!!

I agree, the purpose of the second amendment was to leave the military power in the hands of the people. If you read the amendment it does not give the right to keep and bear arms, it gives the right to form private militias which can, in times of need, be used to cause revolution, or, in times of need, be used to defend us from those evil Canadians who are massing their heavy infantry units on our northern borders!!!

Canada has an army?

@Jennifer:

I agree, the purpose of the second amendment was to leave the military power in the hands of the people. If you read the amendment it does not give the right to keep and bear arms, it gives the right to form private militias which can, in times of need, be used to cause revolution, or, in times of need, be used to defend us from those evil Canadians who are massing their heavy infantry units on our northern borders!!!

the real sting comes from our light infantry (PPCLI).

If you read the amendment it does not give the right to keep and bear arms, it gives the right to form private militias which can, in times of need, be used to cause revolution

and if you understood the intent of the amendment, as written by George Mason (father of the bill of rights) you will see that his definition of militia is twofold- both the regulated, official members of the state national guards, as well as the remaining members of the state male population, ages 18-45. following equal rights, this would then extend to women as well.

Janus is correct: the constitution is quite clear on this issue.

So let’s amend it…

Times change. I certainly have no desire to return to the days when the Constitution was written. Slavery was allowed, women could not vote etc etc etc. Times change and the great thing about the Constitution is we have ways to change it to fit the world it exists in. When the Constitution was written we could not protect our citizens. Bears ate people. Wars where carried out by nations in our backyards. People where their only form of protection. Do we still need guns? I have not pulled mine out from under the bed in years. I know how to shoot. I enjoy shooting, it’s just not important anymore. Being well informed is more important than gun ownership IMO. <shrug>It’s not a volitile issue for me though. Have one of my kids get hurt by some numb buts who does not secure his weapons and I will go insane though. I feel more threatened by that than the government or criminals.</shrug>

Have you read the 2nd Amendment? We don’t have the right to bare arms to defend ourselves from bears.

“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.”

The constitution was meant as a shield. It was tell the federal government what it could not do. It ws not ment to be used to take our rights away. That is why it is so hard to ammend. Yes, it is a complicated process. Do you think you could 2/3rds of the states to pass a law disarming the populace? Yeah right.

I’ll admit that the current administration, and all previous administrations that I have personally encountered with first hand knowledge, would almost certainly not authorize policemen and federal militia forces to go through our personal lives on a whim.

However, what about that next Hitler that might get elected? Wouldn’t you like to have a shotgun then?

Also, if a criminal thinks you might have a gun, he might take pause before breaking and entering. With guns illegal to own, the only ones with guns will be the criminals and they’ll feel so much safer breaking and entering, then raping, murdering and pillaging.

Yes, gun’s are deadly. However, I have yet to see a pistol load itself, aim itself and fire itself. Thus I refuse to believe that guns kill people.

On a personal note: I prefer a dog to a gun. A good german shepard will tear the ever living crap out of an intruder and won’t accidentally hit a family member comming home late. Besides, you can play with a doggie, playing with a gun is just irresponsible.

@Jennifer:

However, what about that next Hitler that might get elected? Wouldn’t you like to have a shotgun then?

this reminds me of the movie “the last supper” or something like that.
Don’t you have already this problem? Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicols i am certain believed that the equivalent is happening. In a country of 300 million people, i’m am quite certain that there is a massive segment of your population that believes that Bush is as bad as Hitler (or worse).

Yes, gun’s are deadly. However, I have yet to see a pistol load itself, aim itself and fire itself. Thus I refuse to believe that guns kill people.

i have yet to see a person with a knife slaughter many of their classmates. True, a world of hurt can be done with box-cutters, but the things i see convince me that the world would be better off without these damn things.

On a personal note: I prefer a dog to a gun. A good german shepard will tear the ever living crap out of an intruder and won’t accidentally hit a family member comming home late. Besides, you can play with a doggie, playing with a gun is just irresponsible.

ahhhh
This is the most reasonable thing i think that you have written. I love doggies. i’m not sure i like the idea of training dogs to “tear the living crap out of someone”, but there are worse sentiments.