Gun Control

[ifyoucantfixit]

    Due to the overnight incident that happened in Colorado.  There has been again a renewed interest in changing some of our gun
laws.  It is always after these horrible tragedies that these issues arise.  Then slowly but surely they subside.  Until; another incident occurs.  Then we have the talks again.

    Personally I believe the Constitution allows all of us to have guns.  We have the right to have them for personal protection, and
for hunting.  The problem lies as I see it, not with the ability to own guns.  It is with the kind of guns that we have been allowed to
have now.  I hate to keep using this reference, but when I was young.  There was a very strong and completely enforced ban on
(machine) guns,  ie the now type of guns that are repeaters.  Such as the AK47 and the Army issue guns that people have now gotten
the right to have as well.     Personally I believe that the gun lobbly has effectively gotten rid of all gun control.  In the interest of their
own profits and gains.  It is well known how they have effectively forbidden and blocked every single attempt by Congress to make
any change in the gun laws.

    I find no ligitimate reasoning for owning these kinds of mass destruction machines.  They certainly don't have any need for use in
hunting or sport.  The only reason to have one, can be for nothing needed or useful..  It just give anyone that is so inclined, to have an instrument of destruction beyond the ordinary means to oppose.

     If a lone gunman had only a single shot pistol or rifle in hand.  Others may have some opportunity to disarme that person.  In a group
situation, they may be able to take him down, and confiscate his weapon.  But no one in their right mind would attempt such a thing against a weapon that could shoot as many bullets in a succession as those kinds of weapons .

Sorry for all the previous typos.. I did this late at night.  Obviously did not check the typing too well...

[David In Indy]

#3, 4 and 6.

With ownership comes responsibility.

And to be perfectly honest with you, I wouldn't mind seeing them banned altogether. Other countries have done it and they are doing just fine.

Tighten the restrictions - GREATLY - or ban firearms across the board. 

[jackofalltrades]

One of my neighbors has a number of guns, including an AK-47. His job takes him on the road for as much as a week at a time.

First of all, what possible use is there for an assault rifle in a heavily populated suburban area?

Second of all, he leaves these guns in his closet, totally unsecured. No gun safe, no nothing. He doesn't have an alarm or any heavy-duty kind of locks or doors. Anyone could break in and there would be more guns on the street.

Most of the people I know that have guns have gotten them out of fear, and fear is never a good mix with firearms. Law enforcement, yes. Average citizen, no. I believe even the police aren't armed in England, and they don't have nearly the violent crime level we do.

[Jeff Wrangler]

One of my neighbors has a number of guns, including an AK-47. His job takes him on the road for as much as a week at a time.

First of all, what possible use is there for an assault rifle in a heavily populated suburban area?

None whatsoever.

Second of all, he leaves these guns in his closet, totally unsecured. No gun safe, no nothing. He doesn't have an alarm or any heavy-duty kind of locks or doors. Anyone could break in and there would be more guns on the street.

That's appalling and frightening. I hope there are no small children in his family.

[delalluvia]

I didn't find any options that I believe in to choose from.

I believe in MUCH stronger controls on automatic weapons.

I believe in MUCH thorough federal investigation of gun sellers and close audits of their sales and inventory.

I believe in limits to ammunition sold.  NOBODY needs 6000 rounds.  (I feel like bringing up the comedian Chris Rock's solution - leave guns alone but price ammunition at $100 per round.  You leave criminals scrambling to scrounge up money to be able to purchase any).

To be more stringent on background checks means more violations of privacy.  Plus, look at our recent shooter.  He had no history at all of mental illness or criminal activity.  He was just strange.  He would have passed any background check with flying colors.  People sold him guns without hesitation.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I didn't find any options that I believe in to choose from.

I believe in MUCH stronger controls on automatic weapons.

I believe in MUCH thorough federal investigation of gun sellers and close audits of their sales and inventory.

I believe in limits to ammunition sold.  NOBODY needs 6000 rounds.

I agree with all of these points. In addition, I wish there were some way to stop ammunition sales on the Internet, but that's probably impossible.

[jackofalltrades]

Here in Houston there is a gun show almost every weekend. There are no background checks, no limits, and no waiting period. Cash-n-carry.

[ifyoucantfixit]

    Well I am sorry that I didn't know more options to present.  I suppose I should have had a other...?  option.  that way people could fill in the blank.
However I think that you are doing that, basically by adding your comments in the reply section.

    I think all of these options should be explored and followed through.  If as you said Dela there was a very high price or tax on the ammo.  There would have to be a great deal of cash involved in having bullets.  Probably would price a lot of people out of the gun carrying group.  I would certainly never want to have to use $100.00 bullets for target practice.  I suppose that would be out of the realm of possibility for getting anyone to agree to a law of that nature however.  I think when Mr Rock placed that option out there.  It was more tongue in cheek, than a real choice he thought would happen.   I do believe we should have much more of a length of time after someone purchases a gun, however until they are allowed to pick it up.  I also do not believe that anyone anywhere has a real ligitimate reason to have those army or police issue guns.  I think they should be the only ones allowed to have them period.  I don't care who disagrees with that idea.. 

[Front-Ranger]

Janice, I didn't get a chance to vote in this poll. Would you like to reopen it for voting?

There has been a lot of controversy about whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution actually confers the right to any ordinary citizen to bear arms. Here it is:

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.

As I interpret this, the right is extended to the people, as a body, to have a militia (a well regulated one) that is armed, to protect them. In other words, our armed forces, our police, etc. Nowhere does the amendment mention individuals, and it BEGINs with a reference to the militia, so that must be pretty important to the meaning. The second clause refers to the security of a free state, so it must have been very important to the writers that the people should be and feel secure. And when a crazy person can mow you down with a machine gun anywhere, do you feel secure? No.

[Mandy21]

That is a grammatically-challenged sentence, to say the least.  The verb, when it finally comes, is in a poorly-chosen place.  I can see where there would be room for interpretation.  I'm sorry I'm just seeing this thread now.  I would have voted before the polls closed.