Gun Control

[bedford wife]

I want to start by saying that I do not believe stricter gun control laws will reduce gun violence or crimes that are committed with guns.  I do have one issue with the media.....I think what happened in Sandy Hook was an abomination, it struck fear into all of us and we collectively grieved the loss of those lives.  Where is the coverage on the children who die from gun violence in our cities?  They, almost to a child, die at the hands of a gun that was illegally procured.  Again, Sandy Hook was a tragedy....however, so are the kids who die in our inner cities.  I am so frustrated that the media willfully chooses not to share verified statistics that prove the point that in an area, where the chances are greater that citizens could be armed, gun violence isn't as prevelant.  Florida is a great example.  The media in this country from FOX to CNN has quit being an advocate for the truth and has become a tool for conglomerates with an agenda.  I have started reading the news about our country that is published in other countries.....I am astounded at some of what I read that doesn't even hit the radar here.  I think one of the most dangerous things is when a government seeks to disarm it's people.  A young Jewish kid on Piers Morgan said it best.  "My Grandparents were disarmed in Germany, they and many others are ashes because of it".    Should our government successfully limit our right to bear arms, or put parameters on that right, we will still have guns here.  We can't stop the drugs that come in from other countries, we can't stop the illegal immigrants who come in from other countries, the difference is that guns will end up being in the hands of those we fear most and will do us the most harm.  We will go into the gunfight with a knife and that won't end up well for most of us.  When I read the second amendment I not only see what my right is, I also walk away feeling that it is my duty to be as armed as the government over me. 

[Peter Griffin]

BW, I agree completely.  The point of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizens to be armed EQUALLY with the government.  If there is any doubt as to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, Look to the 3rd Amendment--if anyone out there knows what that one is LOL.

Montpelier schools have voted to allow concealed carry by their staff.  Way to go Montpelier!!!  This will be one of the safest school districts in NW Ohio.

As soon as Feinstein's bill (or some variation on it) gets passed, Biden and the rest of them will stand up and say "We've done it!!  We've made the children safer." and will walk away from the table.  It's crucial to the safety of our children that we make sure this bill or ANY variation of it is never passed in order to keep these morons at the table talking and working on a plan that will actually keep our children safe.  Mark my words.....once a bill is passed, this administration will want nothing to do school safety.  Nothing to do with Mental Health awareness.  Nothing to do with consolidating mental health records in the criminal background checks.  They will wash their hands of the whole thing and our children will continue to be massacred.  Not THEIR children, of course.....THEIR children are guarded 24/7 by men with guns.

By the way........this bill talks about registering guns.  I have a question.  What about the guns that Obama smuggled to the drug cartels in Mexico? Do the drug cartels have to register those guns as they bring them across the border with the drugs?  Maybe someone should let them know--that way they'll be sure not to bring any guns with them on their smuggling runs.


 

[StopTheBurning]

This government doesn't want to do anything.  The only interest of the politicians is to get reelected.  They will do and say anything to get reelected.  They don't care about the country or us.  They have proven that and we dumba--es keep voting for the same ones. 

[Peter Griffin]

...The media in this country from FOX to CNN has quit being an advocate for the truth and has become a tool for conglomerates with an agenda. 

And how often do you read about an attacker being stopped and lives being saved by an armed citizen?  Almost NEVER.  But it happens almost every single day somewhere in this country.  I, personally, feel safer when I'm around armed citizens who have the practice and training with their weapon (and hopefully some common sense).

...When I read the second amendment I not only see what my right is, I also walk away feeling that it is my duty to be as armed as the government over me. 

Disarming you is exactly what they are trying to do.  I'm not trying to sound like an extremist or a radical or a conspiracist or anything like that but they are trying to pass a bill that requires your guns to be forfeited to the government upon your death.  Regardless of how much money you've got invested in it or how long it's been in your family or whatever......you cannot leave your (Banned) gun to your heirs.

[signal]

  The Second Amendment says that a strong MILITIA
being necessary, the right of the PEOPLE to bear
arms shall not be infringed. When that was written, there
was no National Guard. The only militia was the armed
individuals living in the states, who could be called out
during wars (against Indian tribes, or during the war of
1812, for example).
   By the time of our Civil War, the militia had evolved into
an organized militia, with standing units that drilled every
month, who had uniforms, and were all armed with the
same weapons, provided by the government.
   In 1905 or 1906, Congress passed an act reorganizing
the various state militias as the National Guard.
   Every state has a National Guard, under control of the
state government. This is a locally raised force, made up
of your neighbors. The National Guard is the militia, as
stated in the Second Amendment. Your "right" to own
a gun is a very loose interpretation of this amendment.
  I find it interesting that much of the talk about arming
ourselves "against" the government in Washington, D.C.
comes after years of bashing the Obama administration
by such right wingers as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
  Also, the debate on gun control conveniently ignores
some very pertinant realities. Why is it bad to license guns
and gun owners, but good to license motor vehicles and
their drivers? Why should it be good to register the sale
of every motor vehicle with a title issued by the DMV, but
an infringement of "our rights" to ban selling guns without
a bill of sale registered with the state government?
    If it is a good idea to require someone to pass a driver's
education class and a test before being issued a diver's
license, why shouldn't we require people to pass a gun
safety course before letting them own a gun?
    If it good for states and the Federal Government to
require safety features on cars (seat belts, air bags,
turn signals, brake lights, headlights, back up lights, etc.)
why is it bad for the government to restrict what kind of gun
you can own? If you think that you need a military assault
rifle with a 30 - round clip, my question is what battle are
you planning on fighting? Since the police officer who will
respond to a crime in your community does not carry that
much firepower, why should he feel good about some nut
having that weapon?
    I grew up with guns; I have owned guns; I think that you
should be allowed to own guns - bolt action or lever action
rifles or pump shotguns. These assault rifles with large
capacity clips are only good for shooting a lot of people at
fairly short ranges in a very short amount of time. No private
citizen NEEDS one of these, and I think that these weapons,
and the large capacity clips should be banned, not only for
slaes, but for current ownership. A law should be passed
requiring individuals to surrender these military grade rifles
for a cash reimbursement.

[StopTheBurning]

 licensing of motor vehicles, pets, boats etc., was done to generate revenue.  Nothing else.

[Peter Griffin]

Signal, we've been through this before.  I don't feel like repeating or copy/pasting everything I wrote so........I ask that look to District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) for clarification on the individuals rights under the 2nd Amendment.

Driving a car is not your "right"....it's a privileged.  Also what STB said. 

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting (with bolt-action rifles)......it's about keeping our own (and any other) government in "check" thus requiring us to be "equally" armed as they are.

[Heisenberg]

Why is it bad to license guns and gun owners, but good to license motor vehicles and their drivers? Why should it be good to register the sale of every motor vehicle with a title issued by the DMV, but an infringement of "our rights" to ban selling guns without a bill of sale registered with the state government?

The simple answer is that governments do not respect the rights of people to own guns the way they respect our privilege of owning a car. This is why we needed to include this right specifically in not only our U.S. Constitution, but most state constitutions as well.

Because the threat of having our right to keep and bear arms is constantly under threat, we have to be vigilant in protecting it. We have to make sure that attempts to curtail it actually provide a solution to a legitimate problem, and they are the least restrictive measures that will do so.

To lower our guard is to invite the sort of mind-numbingly stupid laws like those recently passed in New York.

If it is a good idea to require someone to pass a driver's education class and a test before being issued a diver's license, why shouldn't we require people to pass a gun safety course before letting them own a gun?

Motor vehicles account for 40,000 accidental deaths in the United States each year. Firearms, 600. I am curious why you think guns are the appropriate things to target for mandatory training when guns are pretty low on the causes of accidental death.

So already I suspect that you want a testing requirement not to reduce accidental gun deaths, but because you want to make it inconvenient for people to own guns. And I come back to that we have to make sure that restrictions actually provide a solution to a legitimate problem, and they are the least restrictive measures that will do so.

If you think that you need a military assault rifle with a 30 - round clip, my question is what battle are
you planning on fighting?

I think the concern is the battle you're not planning on fighting. If I were planning to fight a battle, I'd want more than just my AR-15. Need doesn't really have anything to do with it either. Military-style rifles are in common use for lawful purposes, and as such are protected under the 2nd amendment.

Since the police officer who will respond to a crime in your community does not carry that much firepower, why should he feel good about some nut having that weapon?

Police officers are actually pretty well armed, with military grade weapons available in their squad cars.

These assault rifles with large capacity clips are only good for shooting a lot of people at fairly short ranges in a very short amount of time.

They're pretty good for hunting coyote too.

[signal]

    License plates for cars were started before 1920 in most states,
not as a money maker.
    I want gun safety and tests for gun owners for the same reason
all states want drivers' ed. and tests for drivers licenses - to insure
that the owner/operator knows the laws, understands the safety
requirements, and can be held responsible for violating them.
    Drivers license training and testing was not started to make money,
but to institute a minimum level of safe driving.
     The NRA says it represents responsible gun ownership. Fine,
let's see them put their lobbying money where there mouth (slogan)
is. They should support mandatory gun safety training for all gun
owners. How ridiculous would it be if the Automobile Association
lobbied against drivers' training, drivers' licenses, license plates,
and motor vehicle titles?
      Everyone agrees that cars can be dangerous if not safely driven.
Why is it debateable that guns are dangerous when not safely handled?
How many times has someone been accidentally shot, and the gun owner
uses the excuse, "I didn't know"?. How many guns are improperly stored?
Why shouldn't gun owners be held to the same safety liability as auto
drivers?
      Think about this - I cannot accelerate my car to the speed of sound,
and send it hurtling down the street with no steering and no brakes.
Yet that is exactly what happens to a bullet when you pull the trigger
on a gun.
 

[StopTheBurning]

I think the previous poster answered all your questions and concerns.
40,000 vs 600

[JustJen]

Signal, I agree with you completely.  Completely.

And, if the point of the 2nd amendment is that we are able to be armed to the same level as our military, I want a rocket launcher, a tank, a few land mines and some grenades.

[Hondo]

The number of gun owners is what, around 150 million (around half of the US pop.). The number of firearm accidental deaths per year, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, http://webappa.cdc.gov, . - around 606, or .0000404 (someone check my math) per gun owner per year.  The number of accidental injury (and this includes a weapon discharge or not) is 14,675, or . .0000978 per gun owner per year.

I'll ask, What would more training accomplish?

[PackersFan]

Analogy of cars to guns is nonsensical.  They have no correlation.  If yer gonna use cars, use boats next.

I never had formal driver training.  I was self taught...with the help of friends and relatives.  And I started out on a tractor...then a truck...then a car.  Same with guns...self taught. 

Nowadays, EVERYTHING that attracts a large part of the population is being licensed.  Its a tax, of course.  Why do cars, boats, RV's, snowmobiles, etc. need to be licensed.  Ridiculous.

Luckily, I don't need to put a license plate on my horse to go for a ride.  And there is no state agency...yet...that requires equestrian lessons.

[signal]

    The statement was made in this forum, that the 2nd Amendement
guarantees your right to be as well armed as the government. Gee, I
hope not. I don't want private citizens to have landmines, rocket
launchers, machine guns, etc. It's the sentiment behind this statement
that bothers me. It implies that some people are seriously thinking about
an armed rebellion against their elected government.
    As far as police officers having military weapons in their patrol cars,
this is not so. Most communities have no extra weapons in the patrol cars,
so the officer has only a handgun and a bullet proof vest, which is not
bullet proof against high powered rifle slugs.
   The following items are currently available, and legal for you to own in
most states: gas masks, modern helmets, bullet proof body armour for
your chest, back, upper arms, hips, and thighs, .50 cal. sniper rifles that
can penetrate a bullet proof vest at a range of 3,000 feet, or a car door
at 1,000 feet, and all kinds of military rifles with larger clips than even those
used by our military.
    Less than 15 years ago, two men staged an armed robbery of a bank
in Los Angeles. The responding police were helpless. The robbers had
full body armour from their knees to their chins, helmets, gas masks, and
assault rifles with hundreds of rounds of ammo. Several policemen were
wounded, and several police cars were disabled. Finally, two policemen
went to a nearby sporting goods store and commandeered two high
powered hunting rifles. Using these, they were able to wound both men,
and stop a gun fight that had lasted more than 45 minutes.
    There is no excuse for this kind of firepower to be in the hands of
any private citizen. There is no legitimate peaceful use for body armor,
gas masks, helmets, AK-47's and other assault weapons, or large
capacity clips.
     You can defend your home and family with a handgun, bolt action
or lever action rifle, or a shotgun. You cannot seriously believe that
you need the same firepower for your home that our army used in
firefights with the Viet Cong, or has used recently against the Iraqi
Army, or insurgents in Afghanistan.
   

[Peter Griffin]

Even though a president has been elected by a majority vote of the people, he still has to abide by certain rules.  A president, even though legally elected, does not have the authority to break certain rules. Once he does, he is no longer our "elected" president, but instead a criminal just as you and I when we break certain rules.  A rebellion would not happen against our "elected government".  We did not "elect" a king or a dictator.  I'm sorry to hear that you (or anyone) feels that the 2nd Amendment does NOT give us citizens the right to protect ourselves against tyranny.  You cannot ever, under any circumstances, protect yourself from tyranny without being equally as armed (ie. weapons, training, intelligence) as your enemy.

Nobody has access to anything that the military doesn't.  In fact, the military (generally) has access to better-made ones than civilians.  The reason the military doesn't use the large capacity magazines your talking about (100 round drums I'm assuming...?) is because it isn't as practical and/or effective for them. Those 100 round drums weigh more and are more prone to jams/misfeeds.  In fact, that is exactly what happened in the LA robbery being referenced.  One of the Gunmen had a jam and elected to discard the "Assault Rifle" for his handgun rather than clear the jam.  He was killed shortly afterward.......by an officer's handgun if I remember correctly (though there's controversy over whether the gunman killed himself before the officer got the shot off).  When the military goes into an operation that requires large capacity magazines, they have it.....assuming it's still in their budget.

The unfortunate incident in L.A. happened because the LAPD didn't/couldn't respond fast enough with proper weapons due to the gunmen's body armor.  The "Hunting Rifles" you refer to were the AR-15.  I believe the LAPD has taken necessary steps to ensure this type of episode doesn't happen again.  Had there been a couple of citizens with AR-15's in their trunk at the time of this tragedy, the incident could've been stopped long before the 45 minutes it actually took.....whether the citizen takes the shot or he puts the weapon in the hands of an expert LEO.

Defending your home with a bolt-action rifle or a lever-action rifle would be very risky to your family and neighbors for a couple reasons.
1.  Both of those rifles, depending on the caliber, will most likely penetrate the intruder and multiple walls of your home--possibly exiting your home entirely and traveling outside.  The same can be said of the AR-15 but the issue of the 2nd Amendment and the right to own an "assault rifle" is not about home defense.
2.  Many break-ins are committed by more than one intruder.....If you are going to shoot, you better be able to hit all of them before they can return fire.  Hopefully you never, ever have a break-in.  Hopefully you never, ever have to shoot at somebody.

Handgun and shotgun (with proper ammo, practice and training) are by far the best choice for home defense.