Gun Ownership/Rights?

[??????????]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's my stance.

[TheWildCard]

I tend to Agree or Strongly Agree... Although I am for background checks and locks on all new guns I feel strongly that any law abiding citizen should be able to have a gun. Just keep them away from criminals and people who don't know what the hell their doing with them and everything should be fine.

[Smash255]

I tend to Agree or Strongly Agree... Although I am for background checks and locks on all new guns I feel strongly that any law abiding citizen should be able to have a gun. Just keep them away from criminals and people who don't know what the hell their doing with them and everything should be fine.

SO I'm guessing you disagree with the NRA??/

[California Dreamer]

funny how people always forget the first part of the 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. "


We have a standing army now, so a 'well regulated militia' is no longer needed.

[??????????]

funny how people always forget the first part of the 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. "


We have a standing army now, so a 'well regulated militia' is no longer needed.

A standing army is unconstitutional. We do not NEED one of those. We do have militias but they were transformed into the National Guard. After that little Civil War incident the Federal Government got scared of its citizens organizing and defending its states constitutional rights.

[Nym90]

I support any gun being legal as long as it has a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose. Otherwise, I don't believe that a weapon should be legally available to the general public if it has no legitimate use other than to kill people. Note that this covers the entire spectrum from Sherman Tanks, nuclear bombs, AK-47s, Uzis, etc....if you believe in an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms I'd think you'd have to say that everything must be legal, up to and including tanks and nuclear bombs. Otherwise you are admitting that it is ok to ban some weapons, but not others...so then where do you draw the line? I say if the gun has no legitimate purpose at all other than to kill people, it shouldn't be legal.

Obviously there is some degree of disagreement as to whether or not a gun has a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, but for most weapons old fashioned common sense should do the job...would anyone in their right mind use this gun to deer hunt, for example? Obviously a fully automatic machine gun is completely useless for hunting.

[Nym90]

Also, before anyone says anything, I have hunted personally before, and live in a very rural area where hunting is HUGE. I'm not some big-city elitist.

[TheWildCard]

I tend to Agree or Strongly Agree... Although I am for background checks and locks on all new guns I feel strongly that any law abiding citizen should be able to have a gun. Just keep them away from criminals and people who don't know what the hell their doing with them and everything should be fine.

SO I'm guessing you disagree with the NRA??/

Hmmm in some ways yes in others no.... If you gave me two choices either guns are banned or anyone can buy a gun... I'd go for the latter option.

[Nym90]

Agreed, Wildcard, I strongly support guns being legal if they have a legitimate use for something other than killing people. I fully recognize the importance of guns and the need for people to defend themselves. I just think that you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously, and that seems to be the most logical place to draw the line.

[Giant Saguaro]

I am for background checks, background checks at gun shows, and assault weapons bans. I could probably be talked into supporting a one gun a month policy.

I am not for expanding the gun ban list and I am against forcing gun owners to get licenses. I fully and completely support legislation to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits; after all, if I run over someone with my Cadillac, for example, they don't sue GM. I am *not against* allowing people to apply for and obtain permits, provided they are competent and of sound mind, to carry a concealed weapon for protection.

I absolutely believe the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, so the question for me isn't should there be gun control, but how much should there be.

[TheWildCard]

I am for background checks, background checks at gun shows, and assault weapons bans. I could probably be talked into supporting a one gun a month policy.

I am not for expanding the gun ban list and I am against forcing gun owners to get licenses. I fully and completely support legislation to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits; after all, if I run over someone with my Cadillac, for example, they don't sue GM. I am *not against* allowing people to apply for and obtain permits, provided they are competent and of sound mind, to carry a concealed weapon for protection.

I absolutely believe the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, so the question for me isn't should there be gun control, but how much should there be.

Very well put.

[Giant Saguaro]

I am for background checks, background checks at gun shows, and assault weapons bans. I could probably be talked into supporting a one gun a month policy.

I am not for expanding the gun ban list and I am against forcing gun owners to get licenses. I fully and completely support legislation to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits; after all, if I run over someone with my Cadillac, for example, they don't sue GM. I am *not against* allowing people to apply for and obtain permits, provided they are competent and of sound mind, to carry a concealed weapon for protection.

I absolutely believe the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, so the question for me isn't should there be gun control, but how much should there be.

Very well put.

Thank you.

I guess your senators are very anti-gun, especially Feinstein?

[Jezziah]

Allowing anyone right to bare arms is just asking for trouble, just look at colombine and dunblain.
Gun crime is always going to be a problem while guns are easily accesible

[Old Europe]

"Strongly Disagree"

[TexasGurl]

unlike most conservatives i think ALL of the amendements are equaly important.
even the second.

[KEmperor]

Strongly agree, having guns in the hands of law abiding citizens saves lives.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Background checks, no assault weapons

[Jezziah]

Strongly agree, having guns in the hands of law abiding citizens saves lives.

But the guns don't just go into law abiding hands do they, they get into criminals hands who use them to murder people, and unstable people's hands who take them into school and use them to shoot their classmates and teachers

[KEmperor]

Strongly agree, having guns in the hands of law abiding citizens saves lives.

But the guns don't just go into law abiding hands do they, they get into criminals hands who use them to murder people, and unstable people's hands who take them into school and use them to shoot their classmates and teachers

But if you make guns illegal and law abiding people turn theirs' in who still has them? The bad guys aren't going to turn their guns in! I think that makes everyone a bit less safe especially in their homes.

Exactly.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Storngly Agree!

[classical liberal]

no assault weapons

What kind of weapon is not an assault weapon?

[PBrunsel]

"The right for a citizen to have and bear arms shall not be infringed..."
-2nd Ammendment.

[zachman]

I'd permit one standard model hunting rifle for the sportsmen. I'd restrict non-cooking knife sales because the buyers are just sick, and I'd promote stun-guns.

[CARLHAYDEN]

funny how people always forget the first part of the 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. "


We have a standing army now, so a 'well regulated militia' is no longer needed.


You seem to have missed the word "FREE."

[CARLHAYDEN]

I support any gun being legal as long as it has a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose. Otherwise, I don't believe that a weapon should be legally available to the general public if it has no legitimate use other than to kill people. Note that this covers the entire spectrum from Sherman Tanks, nuclear bombs, AK-47s, Uzis, etc....if you believe in an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms I'd think you'd have to say that everything must be legal, up to and including tanks and nuclear bombs. Otherwise you are admitting that it is ok to ban some weapons, but not others...so then where do you draw the line? I say if the gun has no legitimate purpose at all other than to kill people, it shouldn't be legal.

Obviously there is some degree of disagreement as to whether or not a gun has a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, but for most weapons old fashioned common sense should do the job...would anyone in their right mind use this gun to deer hunt, for example? Obviously a fully automatic machine gun is completely useless for hunting.

Are you suggesting there is NO right to self-defense?