I'm against all forms of gun control...here's why:

Registration

 

Gun registration is essentially useless in crime detection. Tracing the history of a recovered firearm generally leads to the discovery that it was stolen from a legal owner and that its subsequent pattern of ownership is unknown.[136]Analogies are sometimes drawn between gun registration and automobile registration. Indeed, a majority of the public seems to favor gun registration not because a reduction in crime is expected but because automobiles and guns are both intrinsically dangerous objects that the government should keep track of.[137] The analogy, though, is flawed. Gun owners, unlike drivers, do not need to leave private property and enter a public roadway. No one has ever demanded that prospective drivers prove a unique need for a car and offer compelling reasons why they cannot rely solely on public transportation. No Department of Motor Vehicles

 

has ever adopted the policy of reducing to a minimum the number of cars in private hands. Automobile registration is not advocated or feared as a first step toward confiscation of all automobiles. However, registration lists did facilitate gun confiscation in Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Bermuda.[138] The Washington, D.C., city council considered (but did not enact) a proposal to use registration lists to confiscate all shotguns and handguns in the city. When reminded that the registration plan had been enacted with the explicit promise to gun owners that it would not be used for confiscation, the confiscation's sponsor retorted, "Well, I never promised them anything!"[139] The Evanston, Illinois, police department also attempted to use state registration lists to enforce a gun ban.[140]

 

Unlike automobiles, guns are specifically protected by the Constitution, and it is improper to require that people possess- ing constitutionally protected objects register themselves with the government, especially when the benefits of registration are so trivial. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from registering purchasers of newspapers and magazines, even of foreign Communist propaganda.[141] The same principle should apply to the Second Amendment: the tools of political dissent should be privately owned and unregistered.

 

Gun Licensing

 

Although opinion polls indicate that most Americans favor some form of gun licensing (for the same reasons they approve of auto licensing), 69 percent of Americans oppose laws giving the police power to decide who may or may not own a firearm.[142] That is exactly what licensing is. Permits tend to be granted not to those who are most at risk but to those with whom the police get along. In St. Louis, for example, permits have routinely been denied to homosexuals, nonvoters, and wives who lack their husbands' permission.[143] Other police departments have denied permits on the basis of race, sex, and political affiliation, or by determining that hunting or target shooting is not an adequate reason for owning a handgun.

 

Class discrimination pervades the process. New York City taxi drivers, who are more at risk of robbery than anyone else in the city, are denied gun permits, since they carry less than $2,000 in cash. (Of course, most taxi drivers carry weapons anyway, and only rookie police officers arrest them for doing so.) As the courts have ruled, ordinary citizens and storeowners in the city may not receive so-called carry permits because they have no greater need for protection than anyone else in the city.[144] Carry permits are apparently reserved for New Yorkers such as the Rockefellers, John Lindsay, the publisher of the New York Times, (all of them gun control advocates), and the husband of Dr. Joyce Brothers.[145] Other licensees include an aide to a city councilman widely regarded as corrupt, several major slumlords, a Teamsters Union boss who is a defendant in a major racketeering suit, and a restaurateur identified with organized crime and alleged to control important segments of the hauling industry--hardly proof that licensing restricts gun ownership to upstanding citizens.[146]

 

The licensing process can be more than a minor imposition on the purchaser of a gun. In Illinois the automated licensing system takes 60 days to authorize a clearance.[147] Although New Jersey law requires that the authorities act on gun license applications within 30 days, delays of 90 days are routine; some applications are delayed for years, for no valid reason.[148] Licensing fees may be raised so high as to keep guns out of the hands of the poor. Until recently Dade County, Florida, which includes Miami, charged $500 for a license; nearby Monroe County charged $2,000.[149] These excessive fees on a means of self- defense are the equivalent of a poll tax. Or licensing may simply turn into prohibition. Mayor Richard Hatcher of Gary, Indiana, ordered his police department never to give anyone license application forms.[150] The police department in New York City has refused to issue legally required licenses, even when commanded by courts to do so. The department has also refused to even hand out blank application forms.[151]

 

In addition to police abuse of licensing discretion, there is also the problem of the massive data collection that would result from a comprehensive licensing scheme. For example, New York City asks a pistol permit applicant:

 

Have you ever . . . Been discharged from any employment?

Been subpoenaed to, or attended [!] a hearing or inquiry conducted by any executive, legislative, or judicial body?

 

Been denied appointment in a civil service system, Federal, State, Local?

 

Had any license or permit issued to you by any City, State, or Federal Agency?

 

 

Applicants for a business premises gun permit in New York City must also supply personal income-tax returns, daily bank deposit slips, and bank statements. Photocopies are not acceptable. A grocer in the South Bronx may wonder what the size ofhis bank deposits has to do with his right to protection.

 

The same arguments that lead one to reject a national identity card apply to federal gun licensing. A national licensing system would require the collection of dossiers on half the households in the United States (or a quarter, for handgun-only record-keeping).

 

Implementing national gun licensing would make introduction of a national identity card more likely. Assuming that a large proportion of American families would become accustomed to the government collecting extensive data about them, they would probably not oppose making everyone else go through the same procedures for a national identity card.

 

Finally, licensing is not going to stop determined criminals. The most thorough study of the weapons behavior of felony prisoners (the Wright-Rossi project funded by the National Institute of Justice) found that five-sixths of the felons did not buy their handguns from a retail outlet anyway. (Many of the rest used a legal, surrogate buyer, such as a girlfriend.)[152] As noted above, felons have little trouble buying stolen guns on the streets. In sum, it remains to be proven that gun licensing would significantly reduce crime. Given the very clear civil liberties problems with licensing, it cannot be said that the benefits outweigh the costs.

 

Waiting Periods

 

In the 1960s and 1970s bills to implement federal gun registration and licensing were soundly defeated in Congress, never to resurface as politically viable proposals. The broadest federal gun legislation currently under consideration is a national waiting period for gun purchases. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) has introduced legislation to require a national seven-day waiting period for handgun transfers, which would be permitted only after police officials had an opportunity to check an applicant's background. Because the bill applies to all gun transfers, it would even compel a wife to get police permission before receiving a handgun as a gift from her husband.[153]

 

However, statistical evidence shows no correlation between waiting periods and homicide rates.[154] The image of a murderously enraged person leaving home, driving to a gun store, finding one open after 10 p.m. (when most crimes of passion occur), buying a weapon, and driving home to kill is a little silly.[155] Of course, a licensing system is bound to deny some purchasers an opportunity to buy, but only the most naive rejected purchaser would fail to eventually find a way to acquire an illegal weapon.

 

In addition, waiting periods can be subterfuges for more restrictive measures. Former Atlanta mayor Maynard Jackson proposed a six-month waiting period--a long time to wait for a woman who is in immediate danger of attack from her ex-boyfriend. Senator Metzenbaum's bill would give the police de facto licensing powers, even in states that have explicitly considered and rejected a police-run licensing system.

 

Mandatory Sentencing

 

Those who want to make simple gun possession a crime frequently call for a mandatory prison sentence for unlawful possession of a gun. The National Handgun Information Center demands a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a handgun during "any crime" (apparently including drunk driving or possession of a controlled substance). Detroit recently enacted a 30-day mandatory sentence for carrying an unlicensed gun.[156] None of those proposals is a step toward crime control.

 

Massachusetts's Bartley-Fox law, with a mandatory one-year sentence for carrying an unlicensed gun, has apparently reduced the casual carrying of firearms but has not significantly affected the gun use patterns of determined criminals.[157] Of the Massachusetts law, a Department of Justice study concluded that "the effect may be to penalize some less serious offenders, while the punishment for more serious offenses is postponed, reduced, or avoided altogether."[158] New York enacted a similar law and saw handgun homicides rise by 25 percent and handgun robberies 56 percent during the law's first full year.[159]

 

The effects of laws that impose mandatory sentences are sometimes brutally unfair. In New Mexico, for example, one judge resigned after being forced to send to prison a man with a clean record who had brandished a gun during a traffic dispute.[160] One of the early test cases under the Massachusetts Bartley-Fox law was the successful prosecution of a young man who had inadvertently allowed his gun license to expire. To raise money to buy his high school class ring, he was driving to a pawn shop to sell his gun. Stopping the man for a traffic violation, a policeman noticed the gun. The teenager spent the mandatory year in jail with no parole.[161] Another Massachusetts case involved a man who had started carrying a gun after a co-worker began threatening to murder him.[162] The Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts had opposed Bartley-Fox precisely because of the risk that innocent people would be sent to jail.[163]

 

The call for mandatory jail terms for unlicensed carrying is in part an admission by the gun control advocates that judges reject their values and instead base sentences on community norms. A Department of Justice survey of how citizens regard various crimes found that carrying an illegal gun ranked in between indecent exposure and cheating on taxes--hardly the stuff of a mandatory year in jail.[164] The current judicial/community attitude is appropriate. In a world where first-time muggers often receive probation, it is morally outrageous to imprison for one year everyone who carries a firearm for self-defense.

 

As a general matter of criminal justice, mandatory sentences are inappropriate. One of the most serious problems with any kind of mandatory sentencing program is that its proponents are rarely willing to fund the concomitant increase in prison space. It is very easy for legislators to appear tough on crime by passing draconian sentencing laws. It is much more difficult for them to raise taxes and build the prison space necessary to give those laws effect. Instead of more paper laws, a more effective crime-reduction strategy would be to build enough prisons to keep hard-core violent criminals off the streets for longer periods. If there are to be mandatory sentences for gun crimes, the mandatory term should apply only to use of a firearm in a violent crime

 

Handgun Bans

 

A total ban on the private possession of handguns is the ultimate goal of a Washington lobby called the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Unlike some other gun control measures, a ban lacks popular support; only one-sixth to one-third of the citizenry favors such a measure.[165]

 

Handgun-ban proponents sometimes maintain that handguns have no utility except to kill people. The statement is patently wrong and typical of how little the prohibitionists understand the activities they condemn. Although self-defense is the leading reason for handgun purchases, about one-sixth of handgun owners bought their gun primarily for target shooting, and one-seventh bought the gun primarily as part of a gun collection. In addition, hunters frequently carry handguns as a sidearms to use against snakes or to hunt game.[166]

 

Cost-benefit analysis hardly offers a persuasive case for a ban. One recent study indicates that handguns are used in roughly 645,000 self-defense actions each year--a rate of once every 48 seconds. (As noted above, most defensive uses simply involving brandishing the gun.) The number of self-defense uses is at least equal to, and probably more than, the number of times handguns are used in a crime.[167] Most homicides (between 50 and 84 percent) occur in circumstances where a long gun could easily be substituted.[168] Besides, sawing off a shotgun and secreting it under a coat is simple. Many modern submachine guns are only 11 to 13 inches long, and an M-1 carbine can be modified to become completely concealable.[169] Since long guns are so much deadlier than handguns, an effective handgun ban would result in at least some criminals switching to sawed-off shotguns and rifles, perhaps increasing fatalities from gun crimes. In the Wright and Rossi prisoner survey, 75 percent of "handgun predators" said they would switch to sawed-off shoulder weapons if handguns were unavailable.[170]

 

If families had to give up handguns and replaced them with long guns, fatalities from gun accidents certainly would increase. Since handguns have replaced long guns as a home defense weapon over the last 50 years, the firearm accident fatality rate has declined.[171] The overwhelming majority of accidental gun deaths are from long guns.[172]

 

Handguns are also much better suited for self-defense, especially in the home, than are long guns, which are more difficult to use in a confined setting. Rifle bullets are apt to penetrate their intended target and keep on going through a wall, injuring someone in an adjacent apartment. Further, the powerful recoil of long guns makes them difficult for women, frail people, or the elderly to shoot accurately. Lastly, a robber or assailant has a much better chance of eventual recovery if he is shot with a handgun rather than a long gun.

 

Banning Saturday Night Specials

 

If a Saturday night special is defined as any handgun with a barrel length less than 3 inches, a caliber of .32 or less, and a retail cost of under $100, there are roughly six million such guns in the United States. Each year, between 1 and 6 percent of them are employed in violent gun crimes, a far higher percentage of criminal misuse than for other guns.[173] Although opinion polls find the majority of Americans in favor of banning Saturday night specials, the practical case for banning these weapons is not compelling.[174]

 

Criminals do prefer easily concealable weapons; roughly 75 percent of all crime handguns seized or held by the police have barrel lengths of 3 inches or less.[175] At least for serious felons, though, low price is a very secondary factor in choice of firearm. Experienced felons prefer powerful guns to cheap ones. The Wright and Rossi survey, which focused on hardened criminals, found that only 15 percent had used a Saturday night special as their last gun used in a crime.[176] It should not be surpris- ing that serious criminals prefer guns as powerful as those carried by their most important adversaries, the police.

 

It is often said that a Saturday night special is "the kind of gun that has only one purpose: to kill people."[177] Again, this is untrue. Such guns are commonly used as hunting sidearms, referred to as "trail guns" or "pack guns." One does not need long-range accuracy to kill a snake, and lightness and compactness are important. Nor can all hunters afford $200 for a quality sidearm.[178] More importantly, inexpensive handguns are used for self-defense by the poor.

 

There is no question that laws against Saturday night specials are leveled at blacks. The first such law came in 1870 when Tennessee attempted to disarm freedmen by prohibiting the sale of all but "Army and Navy" handguns. Ex-confederate soldiers already had their military handguns, but ex-slaves could not afford high-quality weapons.[179]

 

The situation today is not very different. As the federal district court in Washington, D.C., has noted, laws aimed at Saturday night specials have the effect of selectively disarming minorities, who, because of their poverty, must live in crime-ridden areas.[180] Little wonder that the Congress on Racial Equality filed an amicus curiae brief in a 1985 suit challenging the Maryland Court of Appeals' virtual ban on low-caliber handguns. As the Wright and Rossi National Institute of Justice study concluded:

 

The people most likely to be deterred from acquiring a handgun by exceptionally high prices or by the nonavailability of certain kinds of handguns are not felons intent on arming themselves for criminal purposes (who can, if all else fails, steal the handgun they want), but rather poor people who have decided they need a gun to protect themselves against the felons but who find that the cheapest gun in the market costs more than they can afford to pay.[181]

Indeed, one wonders what a ban on these low-caliber guns would accomplish. Criminals who use them could easily take up higher-powered guns. Some criminals might switch to knives, but severe knife wounds are just as deadly (and almost as easy to inflict at close range, where most robberies occur).[182]

 

If a ban on Saturday night specials failed to reduce crime, is it likely that its proponents would admit defeat and repeal the law? Or would they conclude that a ban on all handguns was what was really needed? Once criminals started substituting sawed-off shotguns, would the new argument be that long guns too must be banned?[183] That is the point that gun control in Great Britain is approaching, after beginning with a seemingly innocuous registration system for handguns.

 

Well my beliefs aren't entirely what is here, but he does a damn good job making my point. Gun controls do nothing more than help make the 2nd amendment void and I believe they really do not help stop crimes.

 

However, this comes from someone who believes we have the right to all own assault weapons.

I think only cops and the military should have handguns.

 

Rifles, I don't really care as much about, handguns seem to be more of a problem in my eyes.

i love guns. They are a lot of fun, it's fun to go to the gun range (target practice/skeet/trap/etc.), and obviously hunting (for me) is a load of fun. They are also good protection. My mom owns a handgun (just a Ruger .22), and my dad is looking for a nice .45 (I'm still pushing for the .44 Magnum...but I don't think he wants to). We also have plenty of guns ranging from light rifles (.22s) to 12 guage shotguns.

Is anyone really gonna sit there and read all that?

 

Well anyways, I'm not a huge fan of guns either.

In countries like Greece, gun control laws like registration have led to the government confiscating weapons.

 

It reminds me of what someone said on the opie and anthony show 6 months after september 11th:

 

The liberals and all their gun control laws, they will just keep making more and more until no one can own guns and then we all become communists.

 

I thought that was funny. However, I do believe that a government becomes oppressive when it controls the individual's ability to protect himself. I will not stand for an organization that exists for my benefit to start oppressing me.

 

And I do not plan on owning a weapon, but I want to keep my right to do so. The people must have the ability to protect themselves when the government apparatus can violently turn against them.

the tired overused phrase..."if guns are outlawed, will only outlaws own guns?"

im only a fan of guns if im the one holding it

the tired overused phrase..."if guns are outlawed, will only outlaws own guns?"

pretty much

 

im only a fan of guns if im the one holding it

:lol

the tired overused phrase..."if guns are outlawed, will only outlaws own guns?"

pretty much

 

im only a fan of guns if im the one holding it

:lol I see absolutely no use for handguns to be honest, what purpose do they serve? You cant hunt with them. The majority of gun deaths are by handguns. Rifles (not of the assault variety) and Shotguns are okay in my book, simply because they serve a purpose and can put food on your table if you're good enough with it. Not that it influenced my opinion in any way, but you guys should check out Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" its a great movie, and it will definitely make you think.

I know for sure, that I want a handgun "handy" if someone breaks into my house.

I know for sure, that I want a handgun "handy" if someone breaks into my house.

eh, id prefer a shotgun in that instance.

I'd rather have my insurance handy. It's just stuff.

I'd rather have my insurance handy. It's just stuff.

I agree, however, if my family was threatened and in life threatening danger, i wouldcnt hesitate to shoot an intruder. But thats just me.

shotgun is not exactly handy. I mean, depending on your house, you might have room for a shotgun next to your bed. Others may not. Also, if someone broke into my house and had a gun, I'd have a hard time shooting to kill. With a shotgun, you are making some SERIOUS damage. With a simple .22 or something (handgun), you can pop a leg, crotch, even a stomach wound, and they won't die, AND they won't harm you.

I know for sure, that I want a handgun "handy" if someone breaks into my house.

I think that's the point...and people threaten your life with non-hand guns...and it is difficult to carry a rifle everywhere you go.

 

don't concealed firearms make less crime anyway

 

handguns :thumbup

bowling for columbine fan?

 

funny as sh!t movie, but remember what it is: propaganda.

 

Check out the following links:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com

 

Americans don't kill people because we have a lot of guns...it is because we are a particularly violent people. Didn't moore teach you anything

Am I the only one who believes in the whole "put the government in check" thing?

 

I'd rather have my insurance handy. It's just stuff.

Guns are cheaper than insurance...and some things can never be replaced...like heirlooms, family members, your life...you know, stuff like that.

I'd rather have my insurance handy. It's just stuff.

Guns are cheaper than insurance...and some things can never be replaced...like heirlooms, family members, your life...you know, stuff like that. Couple of things based on a few random Dateline viewings, common sense and personal observations:

 

In order for someone to kidnap a member of the family they'd have to want something (in example for most kidnapping cases: money). I'm not a millionaire, so it's most likely a kidnapping won't occur (unless in some far off future and I'm such a jerk my wife walks out on me with my kid in tow). Kidnappings generally occur to people with money and by people they know (except in the case of random child abductions; and they can have the little turd if I'm lax enough of a parent to not teach the "don't talk to strangers" or "go into weird places" lines.).

 

In a robbery type of sitatuation I'd rather call an expert (the police). I also know for a fact anytime it's an emergency (IE the possibility of a gun and a beating involved) the police are on it like a fly to shite.

 

Also, I seriously doubt a burglar's breaking into my house to burgle my life (it's not that valuable). Just get a healthy door lock with a place to hide IN your room (closet, side bathroom, or, better yet an awesome door deadbolt and inaccessible otherwise entry apartment; that might be english, hope it makes sense).

 

Also, there's no case where my stuff's getting stolen I can see taking a life as an alternative. There's nothing THAT valuable (maybe a Viper, but that's a car and A CAR IS A CAR! :whistle ). I just don't think I could leave the safety net of my room to go shoot some guy because he's taking a meaningless and replaceable set of DVD's and CD's tv's or any of that other crap that doesn't matter. And with ANY gun around that's a possibility. Anyone who plays Dirty Harry in their house has their own business to attend to, but I'd strongly recommend you don't (A: it's dark, B: you're putting your own life in danger).

 

Common sense tells me it's safer to just pay out the couple extra bucks to have homeowner's insurance (it's not THAT expensive and it covers more than just theft).

 

My point is: I hate people enough, where I don't random dumbasses I don't trust with hidden guns. Particularly in places like bars, in places like cars (some idiots get pretty emotional during accidents) and places where a lot of money exchanges hands (my work). I'd rather all the idiots didn't have guns than have them, but that's not going to happen, so I just live my life under the rules without one (I see no reason I'll ever need one).

hand guns should be made illegal. They're only good for one thing: killing.

And the second ammendment does not give you a right to own a gun. Only if it's "necessary to the security of a free state"

hand guns should be made illegal. They're only good for one thing: killing.

And the second ammendment does not give you a right to own a gun. Only if it's "necessary to the security of a free state"

I agree with your logic about handguns, however, the second amendment gives us the following rights, 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

 

TRANSLATION-"The government will not and Can not take away our choice to own firearms, or any other plausible weapon for that matter. Now if you had an f-16 in you backyard with nukes strapped to it, that might be going to far, but guns are totally legal, and we have every right to own them. However, guns made for the sheer purpose of "self defense" usually are the ones that wind up involved with the offenses.

 

So yes, it DOES give us the right to own guns.

I have guns, they are located between my elbow and shoulder on each arm

 

BANG

I have guns, they are located between my elbow and shoulder on each arm

 

BANG

hahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahha!

 

i used to have a rifle, when i pulled the trigger it would make 7 different types of music. then one day it broke... but i think it was the batteries... i was too young to know about batteries, so i figured it was just broken...

I will not live in a house without a shotgun, a rifle, and a four wheel drive.

Couple of things based on a few random Dateline viewings, common sense and personal observations:

 

In order for someone to kidnap a member of the family they'd have to want something (in example for most kidnapping cases: money). I'm not a millionaire, so it's most likely a kidnapping won't occur (unless in some far off future and I'm such a jerk my wife walks out on me with my kid in tow). Kidnappings generally occur to people with money and by people they know (except in the case of random child abductions; and they can have the little turd if I'm lax enough of a parent to not teach the "don't talk to strangers" or "go into weird places" lines.).

 

In a robbery type of sitatuation I'd rather call an expert (the police). I also know for a fact anytime it's an emergency (IE the possibility of a gun and a beating involved) the police are on it like a fly to shite.

 

Also, I seriously doubt a burglar's breaking into my house to burgle my life (it's not that valuable). Just get a healthy door lock with a place to hide IN your room (closet, side bathroom, or, better yet an awesome door deadbolt and inaccessible otherwise entry apartment; that might be english, hope it makes sense).

 

Also, there's no case where my stuff's getting stolen I can see taking a life as an alternative. There's nothing THAT valuable (maybe a Viper, but that's a car and A CAR IS A CAR! :whistle ). I just don't think I could leave the safety net of my room to go shoot some guy because he's taking a meaningless and replaceable set of DVD's and CD's tv's or any of that other crap that doesn't matter. And with ANY gun around that's a possibility. Anyone who plays Dirty Harry in their house has their own business to attend to, but I'd strongly recommend you don't (A: it's dark, B: you're putting your own life in danger).

 

Common sense tells me it's safer to just pay out the couple extra bucks to have homeowner's insurance (it's not THAT expensive and it covers more than just theft).

 

My point is: I hate people enough, where I don't random dumbasses I don't trust with hidden guns. Particularly in places like bars, in places like cars (some idiots get pretty emotional during accidents) and places where a lot of money exchanges hands (my work). I'd rather all the idiots didn't have guns than have them, but that's not going to happen, so I just live my life under the rules without one (I see no reason I'll ever need one).

There are certain things in my house you cannot insure, like my WW1 German army helmet (which is worth a pretty penny too). I don't own the house I live in, so why would I insure it?

 

Furthermore, if I am walking around and someone wants to stick me up, car jack me, or ect, if I was trained in the use of a firearm I would want one. And no, my dad owned a GAS STATION and the firemen down the street (literally a minute away) took 10 minutes to get there. So if you live in the middle of anywhere not right next to a cop station/doughnut place, no one will be there to help you.

 

I know it is weird, but I am really for the whole "keep the government in check" thing. Throughout history the more authoritarian governments get, the more they want to take away people's guns (for obvious reasons.) Now this might not explain the situation in Venezuela (with tons of gun nuts), but I do not know enough about the government to say they just plain suck or they opress the people.

One of the biggest misconceptions perpetuated by the NRA is that we have the right to bear arms. The supreme court has never interpreted the 2nd amendment as some unequivical right to bear arms. It is the right of the militia to bear arms. The militia for all intensive purposes is the modern national guard. Find me a case contrary to said interpretation and Ill concede. In addition, the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and has never been incorporated via the 14th amendment so any body who says a state or city cant pass a gun law because of the 2nd amendment has no clue.

 

The second biggest misconception is that conceal and carry laws reduce crime. The study you refer to was done by John Lott who has lost all credibility in the academic circles. His study miscontrues numbers and doesnt properly take numerous variable into account. Why would he do this? Because his name has gotten so popular within gun rights circles and he has so much publicity now. There has been no validation of his studies.

 

The NRA is gradually destroying this nation. They staunchly support gun dealers who knowingly sell handguns and assault rifles in bulk to known criminal gun dealers. They argue that every man, women and child should own a gun despite strong evidencnce that you are much more likely to have an accident with a gun and kill your own family member either accidently or intentionally than stopping a criminal.

 

Another great example and BEST EXAMPLE of this lack of logic by many gun nuts is the instacheck system. Under Brady, if you wanted to buy a gun, the police had to do a background check on you to see if you were a nut who shouldnt be allowed to by a gun. It took a week so that it was accurate and gave overworked police enough time to prevent madman from getting guns. In addition, if you were buying the gun out of rage, it gave you more time to "cool off." Is this a problem? Do you gun rights people think this is too much? Well teh NRA does. Theyve been lobbying to either a)scrap the system or b) in the alternative have an INSTACHECK system that gives the cops a day to find out. The system is riddled with erros. Sadly the NRA has gotten their way on this. Is this logical? No. But its no suprise.

 

There is a huge sensibility gap. Keep your damn guns if you want. But dont tell the city they cant keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Dont tell states that they should make sure 16 yr olds dont get guns at gunshows. NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE EVERYONE'S GUN AWAY. People need to realize that the government isnt trying to do that. But they are obsessed with the slippey slope belief that all sensible legislation is blocked.

 

Its funny that bowling for columbine is characterized as propaganda by someone who implies his views are the government is going to take over our lives.

I will not live in a house without a shotgun, a rifle, and a four wheel drive.

"Country Boy Can Survive" - Hank Jr.

 

 

Amen to that, DodgeMarlin