Hand guns - do you think it is ok for humans in this country to own them?

[The Straight Story]

Poll question: Hand guns - do you think it is ok for humans in this country to own them?

Trying to keep it simple.

Yes - you think it is ok for a fellow human to own a hand gun (and it should not be illegal).

No - You think we should restrict ownership and only allow the govt to own such weapons (ie, it should be illegal because we cannot trust fellow citizens, we can only trust the government).

Depends on where you live - you think it is ok in Montana (as an example) but not San Francisco.

Those wishing for 'other' - what is your 'other'? Obviously one might say regulation, which we have already, but do you still think fellow citizens should be allowed to own hand guns??

[Mojambo]

1. Sure. As long as the owner is properly trained and the firearm is properly registered. n/t

[Not Me]

4. I have always advocated that they be treated (at least) like

motor vehicles.

- You register them.
- You prove that you can operate it.
- You must carry liability insurance in the event that you are negligent in their use.

[Tumbulu]

34. I completely agree with you

Especially the liability insurance part.

[The Straight Story]

5. Is that a right the govt gives us, or we give them?

I hope someday that the govt properly registers it's weapons with us :)

[Mojambo]

8. We ARE the government. n/t

[The Inquisitive]

42. meanwhile back on planet earth...

[Mojambo]

52. It's a representative democracy

For the purpose of determining who sets the regulations on firearm ownership and usage I would not consider the people to be separate from the government they have chosen to form by electing representation.

But then I'm a liberal. I don't necessarily assume that the government is some external threat to be minimized and feared.

The people have a right to own guns. The people also have a right to regulate that ownership. Governments are established by the people to do that.

IMO anyway.

[krispos42]

18. Especially when our gov't ships them off to Iraq

"Iran is arming terrorists! Iran is arming terrorists!" says the reich-wing noise machine.

"Hey, where did those 110,000 fully-automatic Kalishnikov assault rifles and 80,000 Glock pistols go?" asks the lefties.

"Uh, uh, Iran is funding terrorists! Iran is funding terrorists!", stammers and spews the reich-wing noise machine.

"Hey, were did 360 tons of c-notes go? That's like 12 C-130s worth. Nine billion dollars." asks the lefits.

"It's a liberal conspiracy!" screams the reich-wing noise machine.

"If it is, why are you guys running things?" asks the lefties.

And then their heads explode.

[Taverner]

2. And rifles, and 'assault weapons', and machine guns, and rocket launchers

Sure, they should be legal to own.

Available - well that's another subject altogether.

[Froward69]

20. Second!!!

[krispos42]

3. As long as it's only humans and other sentient species

I don't want da bears bearin' arms, knowwhatimean? :-)

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. HEY! The Constitution gives me the *right* to keep and arm bears!

oh, wait..... that was "bear arms", wasn't it?

DON'T RUN FOR THE HILLS! THE BEARS ARE ARMED!

[krispos42]

23. Colbert just soiled himself

:-)

[DefenseLawyer]

48. If the Bears start carrying firearms

The Packers don't stand a chance.

[jody]

6. Interesting question but you omitted the reason. Law-abiding citizens keep and bear arms,

e.g. handguns, for self-defense because SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody.

That's why the right to keep and bear arms is a natural, inherent, inalienable right.

It's a fact that handguns are the most effective/efficient tools for a person to use to exercise their civil right to defend them self against criminals. That's why handguns are the first choice of law enforcement officers.

[Kutjara]

7. If I had my way, I wouldn't allow other humans to own anything more lethal...

...than a piece of overboiled spaghetti. Even then, someone would find a way to choke someone else with it. People simply can't be trusted not to be malicious and/or stupid. Unfortunately, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle on that one, so given it would be impossible to put it back in, I suppose the only alternative is to make sure that everyone is similarly armed. That way, at least we'll all have a fighting chance when the balloon goes up.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

53. I read an article from a former spook a while ago that showed

how you could roll up a newspaper into an effective and lethal shiv. The fact is that humans are going to kill each other, one way or another. If we banned EVERYTHING that could be used to kill a person, someone would just think up something else.

[angstlessk]

9. as opposed to ??? Giant Panda Bears??? n/t

[BlueJazz]

10. No

[IntravenousDemilo]

11. No, because the kind of people who want guns are the very same kind of people...

...who shouldn't be trusted with them. It's like power. The people who want power that badly cannot be trusted with it because there are obviously ulterior motives -- just why does he or she want power exactly? I wouldn't mind if people who hated guns had them, just as the person who doesn't seek power is the person you should trust with power.

In fact, the powers that be should administer a psychological test to each person who applies for a handgun licence, a nice short test with just one question: "Do you want to buy a handgun?" If the answer is yes, the applicant fails the test.

[ileus]

17. LOL....good stuff.

[aikoaiko]

24. Technically, your answer should be "Yes, but it depends"

[cali]

25. please tell me you're not serious

my state has heavy gun ownership including handguns, and very loose gun laws. What "crazy" state do I live in? Vermont. I know tons of liberals who own a handgun.

[IntravenousDemilo]

33. I'm sorry, but I have to disappoint you.

Rifles and shotguns I have much less trouble with, particularly in rural areas, but you do have to be insane to want to own a handgun. And there should be no "concealed carry" allowed either. When I'm walking down an American street, I want to know which nutjobs are packing heat so I can shun them.

[cali]

36. don't come to Vermont

then- even if we do have one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country. And yes, we have concealed carry.

I support the 2nd amendment.

[mvd]

40. I would leave concealed carry up to state and local governments

I would probably not allow it for other kinds of guns. You are right that concealed carry seems to be ok in some places, but it might depend on conditions.

[cali]

41. I completely agree with that

gun control should occur at state at municiple levels.

[IntravenousDemilo]

47. Mmm, well, have fun with that. Just don't go off half-cocked or anything. n/m

[qdemn7]

106. As a Canadian

It's none of your business what we Americans do on our streets.

[zanne]

125. qdemn7--That was incredibly rude

The term "Ugly American" exists for a reason. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a Canadian weighing in on the situation. Maybe, just maybe, it can even give us some perspective.

[qdemn7]

131. Rude? Too damn bad!!

I'm tired of Canadians, Brits, and others weighing in on our RKBA when not one of them have a similar right. That's no different from someone who lives in a place where abortion is banned commenting on American law in this aspect. Or where there is no guarantee of Free Speech.

[Paladin]

132. Thanks For Conforming To Every "Gun Nut" Stereotype, QD

Do you and other gun militants ever get tired of doing the other side of this issue such huge favors? Evidently not....

[OffWithTheirHeads]

56. I'd be willing to bet that you have never shot a gun.

I am one of the most empathetic human beings you will ever meet. I lean so far left socially that I am about to fall over. I have an almost Mahayana Buddhist regard for all life. Hell, I go out of my way not to step on bugs, but because I love my guns, you automatically think I'm crazy and drunk with power? Sorry, you just seem like an ill informed weenie to me.

[IntravenousDemilo]

65. And you would be wrong.

I spent summers on our family farm outside Maryfield, Saskatchewan, from about age eight through my early teens. Sometimes I'd go out with the others and we'd shoot coyotes that were preying on the livestock. We never did it with handguns, but with shotguns.

My disgust with guns really started when an older neighbour boy shot a gopher in front of me with a shotgun, atomizing it. I'm sure the kid got some sort of rush (culminating in climax) when he did that, but it turned me off guns for good. So I invite you to shove your "ill-informed weenie" crack, Mr Novak.

You also misread my post. I never said gun owners were drunk with power. I said people who are drunk with power (i.e., certain politicians) cannot be trusted with power, and I said that people who idolize their guns cannot be trusted with guns.

The power thing is one of the main reasons why I'd like to see Al Gore as President -- because he doesn't seem to want it all that much. That makes him much less dangerous in my mind than the current crop of candidates, Republican and Democratic, who are slavering over the prospect of practically unlimited power.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

66. Well then, I apologise. One of the problems with forums like this is that

so much of our inflections are not present and it is often difficult to read peoples true intentions in a post. However, " No, because the kind of people who want guns are the very same kind of people...

...who shouldn't be trusted with them. It's like power. The people who want power that badly cannot be trusted with it because there are obviously ulterior motives -- just why does he or she want power exactly? I wouldn't mind if people who hated guns had them, just as the person who doesn't seek power is the person you should trust with power."

Pretty much says that I am a sociopath because I like guns. So, once again, you are full of shit and I am not, or perhaps we are just not communicating well.

Frankly, it's late and I really don't give a fuck. If you don't like guns, much as if you don't like abortions, don't have one, but don't try to make it against the law for me.

[AndyTiedye]

76. You Mean Like This Guy?

I said people who are drunk with power (i.e., certain politicians) cannot be trusted with power, and I said that people who idolize their guns cannot be trusted with guns.

http://www.toonedin.com/cheney.html

[IntravenousDemilo]

87. Egg-zackly! n/m

:)

[qdemn7]

77. Why are Canadians

Always so eager to tell Americans what they should do about guns?

[IntravenousDemilo]

86. Perhaps the eagerness stems from our not being paid attention to.

We've been trying hard to set an example up here, not only in so far as guns are concerned (we have plenty of them, but we have nowhere near your average rate of violent crime), but in health care, equal marriage, old-age pensions, labour law, international relations, etc. Canada has had a great deal of success in these things, and we're hoping you'll notice the success say, "Hey, that's working for them," and try to duplicate the success. When you don't do so, we find we have to remind you, and eventually we become insistent. Basic human nature, that. All we want is for you to be as happy, comparatively speaking, as we are.

But what do RWers in the US have to say about, for example, our system of medicare? "Oh, oh, oh! You won't be able to keep your own doctor! You'll have one assigned to you by the government! The sky is falling, peep, peep!" We didn't send soldiers to Iraq. What do voices on the right say? That we're abetting the terrorists, that we're bad neighbours, that we don't care about blah blah blah..." Even Mrs Clinton was convinced that the 9/11 bastards had come to the US through our supposedly porous border with you. We have paper ballots (one style), pencils, and hand counting of votes in our elections, both provincial and federal, which dramatically cuts down on election fraud. Your country has been moving in exactly the opposite direction with hackable voting machines. Hello, what the hell are you guys doing?

And when we mention that gun control has led to a more peaceable society in Canada, the fact is completely ignored or even pooh-poohed by gun fanciers admittedly from all parts of the polical spectrum. But we're so used to being discounted by the right wing in the United States, I guess we feel that ALL the criticism comes from the right. This feeling is amplified by the additional fact that most if not all of anti-gun-control lobbyists in Canada are Conservatives. Michael Moore seems to think that our citizens are so much more peace-loving than yours, but I would dispute this. I think we're more alike than different, and the things that work here should work just as well where you are.

Now, we're not the type of people who would invade your country (not that we could, even with most of your forces overseas) and impose our ways on you. That's not our style. But we don't like to have our example thrown in our faces over and over and over. So at first we feel a little sad, and then indignant, and then we speak up.

I hope that answers your question. It's the best I could come up with at the moment.

[michreject]

81. Question number 2

"Why do you want a gun?"

To shoot the person who thought up this test.:)

[Richard Steele]

99. Let's apply that notion: Do you WANT freedom of speech?

"Yes", you say?

Well, then clearly you are the type of person who
will abuse that freedom to the detriment of others,
and therefore should not have it.

[IntravenousDemilo]

102. But it's neither loony nor megalomaniacal to crave free speech...

...which is not the case with handguns or power, respectively. As far as your constitution or mine are concerned, I'm not a strict constructionist like, say, Scalia. Different times and circumstances occasionally almost cry out for different, more modern judicial interpretations of the Amendments.

Moreover, the constitutional right to free speech does not mean you also have the right to be heard. And I don't think "free speech" should apply to bigoted words, either.

[Richard Steele]

104. Pfft. That's what all you "free speech nuts" always say!

:) :sarcasm: :hi:

[slackmaster]

121. Overgeneralize much?

I am very suspicious of your motives in wanting to have power over ME.

[Deja Q]

12. I'd ask a similar question; just replace 'hand guns' with 'people'.

[On the Road]

28. Or You Could Replace "Handgun" with "Pork Sausage"

In what way is slavery similar to owning a handgun?

[ileus]

13. It's better than letting monkey's own them in this country.

[Kurovski]

16. ...But not as good as death-dealing robots.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

59. Most especially Chimpy Mc Cokespoon!

nt

[tesla78]

14. I believe in the Constitution

Amendment 2
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.

A large national army sometimes puts freedom in danger. In some countries, army leaders have taken over the government and done away with people's rights. Fearing such an army, our people wanted the right to have state militia, or citizen armies. (The National Guard in each state is made up of volunteers who are citizens)This was the reason for Amendment 2. It keeps the federal government from passing rules forbidding the state militia to use arms in lawful ways.

[tularetom]

15. Where I live it's almost a requirement

It would take any sheriff's deputy at least 30 minutes to get here in any kind of emergency. And there are only two houses within three miles of this place. We don't consider police protection to be a fact here.

My neighbor is 70 years old, divorced from our right wing DA (because he wasn't right wing enough for her) and I wouldn't mess with her. We've had our disagreements over theyears but she's the one human being I'd trust to be with me in any kind of sticky situation. And she owns a shitload of handguns.

We have a couple ourselves.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

51. Tulare like in near Fresno?

My born wrong the first time, (so he had to be born agin!) Nazi, pseudo Xtian brother lives in Visalia. I spent about a month down there last summer. What a hell hole! You have my sympathy!

[tularetom]

55. Lived there as a kid - now in the foothills N. of Fresburg

It wasn't too bad as a kid back in the 50's. Lots of canals to swim in. I knew all the ranchers and they'd let you hunt on their property as long as you didn't make a big mess and leave gates open. Yeah there's a lot of wingnuts there but I even found a lot of them in Berzerkley in the 60's. It's not to everybody's taste but I wouldn't trade where I live now for anywhere.

[Oldenuff]

19. There ough to be a law

Requiring every American to own a gun.Gun registration is pure BS.

sorry if that offends someones views....but that's honestly how I feel.Don't rationalize my rights please.

[cali]

43. what a ridiculous comment

you object to gun registration and think there should be a law requiring gun ownership. Do you realize what you just said?

[IntravenousDemilo]

49. I think he may have just said that he wants everyone to have a gun but no one should have to

register it, which would result in complete anarchy -- I suspect libertarians would positively orgasm over the sort of chaos that would accompany the presence of 300,000,000 unregistered handguns. It's that sort of lunacy that contributes to my over-all view of gun owners.

[mvccd1000]

68. Huh? No gun registration in AZ, and I don't think we've descended into anarchy yet.

What does registering a gun have to do with anarchy? I need no permit to buy a gun, no permit to carry a gun, and no permit to sell a gun. No government agency has any record of my gun.

Why am I not surrounded by anarchy?

[IntravenousDemilo]

71. Perhaps you haven't descended into anarchy yet because...

...not every man, woman, and child in Arizona has a gun.

[mvccd1000]

75. Perhaps. Still, it's quite common to walk into a bank, or a grocery store,

or the eye doctor's office, or a junkyard, or even just walk down the street and see people open carrying pistols.

Presumably, since we are a "shall-issue" state for concealed carry permits, you would also be around a number of people with a concealed weapon at any given point in time, as well.

Don't you find it odd that none of those law-abiding citizens choose to rob the bank simply because they are wearing a pistol? None of them shoot the non-English speakers holding up the line at the bank because they don't speak English? None of them shoot the waitress for delivering the wrong order?

Where is this anarchy of which you speak? I suspect that if YOU were let loose in society with a pistol, you fear you could not control yourself. Please do not project your perceived shortcomings onto the rest of us.

[krispos42]

93. Why anarchy?

What mentality is this?

Why would social order suddenly break down? Keeping in mind that something like 40% of American households already have at least one gun in them, and the vast, vast majority of them are not registered.

[IntravenousDemilo]

103. See post 71. n/m

[Oldenuff]

54. Give me a minute

I'm trying to come up with a snappy reply:think:

[OhioChick]

21. Yes. n/t

[mudesi]

26. No. They have no purpose.

Nobody needs a hand gun for anything, ever.

[cali]

39. there are lots of dangerous things

that no one needs.

[Feron]

61. Self-defense

I'm planning on buying a handgun as part of my hurricane kit.

After a natural disaster, there are no police and plenty of shady characters around. And the police have proven that when contacted they couldn't care less.

Since neither my mom or I are ninjas or muscular enough to be threatening, I just want something that will deter or efficiently kill a person that wishes to do either of us harm.

I'm certainly not a John Wayne type looking to engage someone. Nonlethal methods like lighting worked great last time and I will repeat them again. However just because I didn't run into trouble last time does not mean that I will have the same experience every time. Katrina was certainly an eyeopener on how fast civilization can disappear.

I regard guns like an emergency fire equipment. Something that is there if you need it, but also something you really don't want to be in a position of using.

[mudesi]

62. Rifles and shotguns work

You don't need a hand gun to do any of that.

Hand guns are lighter and easily concealable. That's the difference.

[ManiacJoe]

63. That is what makes handguns good for self defense

when you are out and about.

[IntravenousDemilo]

72. On the other hand, no one is likely to fuck with you if you're carrying a rifle in plain view.

They'll be too busy avoiding you. And there's your self-defence right there. People will still get in your face if they have no idea that you're packing a handgun, though.

So if you absolutely must have a handgun, don't keep it hidden; stick it in a holster like the cops, so everyone can see it and cross to the other side of the street if they wish.

[krispos42]

95. So do handguns

Handguns also work better in homes when you have to go investigating. You have one hand free to operate light switches, turn knobs, manipulate a flashlight, etc. And they are easier and faster to move in close quarters and harder to take away.

A handgun can also be kept in a quick-access safe. They have ones now that are fingerprint-activated.

[benEzra]

96. Which is why the Bradyites are fighting so damn hard to ban the most popular rifles, right? (n/t)

[EstimatedProphet]

119. No one needs to post on DU

Shut it down, now.

[slackmaster]

122. Then why do police officers carry them?

:dunce:

[JMDEM]

27. What about foot guns? We need the right to bear footguns too.

This thread is going to get wild and wooly for all the old reasons, and in the end, nobody's opinion will have changed. Oh well -- beats TV I guess.

[AndyTiedye]

29. I Wouldn't be Averse to Requiring a Course in Firearms Safety

your restriction of it to "humans" probably excludes Dick Cheney.

[mvd]

32. That is something else I could support

And LOL about Cheney.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

50. All the kids in my region go thru Firearms Safety in 6th grade.

They learn about guns and are required to handle and fire a shotgun. I've always been pro-gun and vote straight ticket Democratic. It is a wedge issue that doesn't really exist.
Same as abortion, we are all mostly pro-life unless we are in unforeseen trouble, and that crosses to both sides of the aisle.
~Hence Roe still stands after a 6 year republican majority.
Very stupid these issues, and False.

[B Calm]

30. The right to own guns is a very LIBERAL idea..

when you sit down and think about it!

[Paladin]

58. If It's Such A Liberal Idea.....

...how come Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Tom DeLay, Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent, Michelle Malkin, The New Rudy Giuliani, The New Mitt Romney, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzalez, and countless other right-wing asswipes support the sort of gun ownership policy you're undoubtedly in favor of?

(Looking forward to the standard "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" non-response.....)

[CRF450]

69. Even though we mostly disagree on most issues against repubs

This is one of those issues that we should agree with. We should have a right to bear arms, so I voted yes.

[B Calm]

85. The Second Amendment is the right of the individual to defend himself,

or herself,against both tyranny and lawlessness! Have you ever considered that maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense and the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress us? Seems like a liberal idea to me!

[Paladin]

108. The Second Amendment Will Be......

....what the Supreme Court says it is, sometime in the future, if ever. Until then, your concept of what it means is no more valid than my own.

And as far as this "take up arms against a government" crap, do you harbor any goofy notion that Dick Cheney loses a moment of sleep over such empty talk? Why should he worry? He's evil, but he's smart enough to know that any armed uprising by liberals would be met not only with government forces, but by 90% of the gun-bearing public, right wingers who think Cheney and the rest of this regime are just swell and are worthy of being protected.....

[mvd]

31. Legal

1) With purchase limits per month
2) Keeping track of hand guns used in crimes
3) Licensing
4) Sold with trigger locks
5) All other current regulations

I don't plan on owning one, but think the gun culture is too established to try to make guns illegal.

[michreject]

82. Just as long as it's not one

1) With purchase limits per month

As I have bought 4 this month.:P

[mvd]

88. In cities like Philly I would limit it to two a month at most

Maybe more in less crime-ridden places.

[michreject]

90. Why?

What would that prove? It's not the legal gun owners doing the killin. It's the thugs.

[mvd]

91. They get into the black market

Lots of illegal purchases. I don't think more guns = better, either.

[michreject]

92. You're still punishing the law abiding gun owners with this restriction

Lots of illegal purchases <<<<<< And not these people. They don't care about laws.

[mvd]

94. It keeps guns out of illegal hands IMO

Some restrictions can be there and protect the rights of gun owners.

[Thothmes]

114. In Virginia you can buy one hand gun a month

[OffWithTheirHeads]

35. Hell yes! My dogs can't shoot for shit!

They have a really hard time with my handguns and can't even pick up my rifles, much less aim and fire them. So, who is supposed to defend the house when the mailman comes to kill us? At least, that is what my dogs tell me he is trying to do when he comes to the house everyday. It has to be the responsibility of the humans!

[Beausoir]

37. No.

[woo me with science]

38. no. only bears. nt

[hedgehog]

44. I think there should be an open registry so anyone can check to

see if a neighbor has a hand gun. If you know someone has a hand gun and you know a good reason they shouldn't such as anger problems or frequent threats to others, then you should be able to inform a judge and ask for the permit to be revoked.

[Ikonoklast]

57. Why stop there?

If you have a neighbor whose free speech happens to offend you, why not be able to go to a judge and censor him?

I'm sorry, but the Constitution doesn't let you be the arbiter of my freedom. And my right to privacy outweighs any concerns you have about my personal business, as long as I don't harm anyone. Period.

[lynne]

64. While a registry sounds good -

- I don't think a total registry is feasible. Many have guns that have been handed down by family members, purchased at a time when registration wasn't required so they're not on paper anywhere. We have two such guns - one handed down in the family since the 1920's. An open registration of handguns as you suggest would also be a written invitation to burglars complete with address.

[DefenseLawyer]

45. You can't just ban things

Suddenly telling a culture that has a tradition of owning guns that they can't anymore would be no more successful than telling a culture that drinks alcohol that is it suddenly illegal to drink. It isn't even a matter of whether it would be better in the abstract if we didn't have guns or if everyone was sober. It just won't work. The ban won't quell the demand, and rest assured someone will be willing to meet that demand at the healthy profit margin that goes with it. Even talking about a ban is a waste of time. Change the culture. Although obviously that isn't nearly as easy as passing a law.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

46. Shit like this drives me crazy. I can't vote. We live in a country armed to destroy the world..

If having a handgun makes YOU "feel" safer, I doubt my mind or heart could ever make you feel comforted.

I've never owned one. I know many who did and their lives haven't benefitted much, if at all.

Personally, if we MUST be brutal, I'd rather take away EASY means of destroying one another and make such human death more personal. We've become way too detached from life and death. If we MUST engage in KILLING one another, I'd prefer sticks and rocks over bullets and bombs.

At least, each human life holds a meaning at death.

[bridgit]

60. yes, when i worked concert security i carried one concealed...

with a permit to do so, fortunately, i never had to use it but seen others in my attache pull theirs and scare the be-jeebus out of people so i understand their power, and the power of their imagery

edit: for missing wurdz :dunce:

[aikoaiko]

67. Yes (except for violent felons & adjud. mentally ill) --- handguns are useful tools for self-defense

In the summer, I carry this titanium .357 in my pocket...




but lately, I've started to carry something heavier.

[Common Sense Party]

70. I sure as hell wouldn't trust my cat with a firearm.

I don't trust him unarmed (and declawed), come to think of it.

He's shifty and self-interested.

Maybe he's a Republican.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. I don't even trust my cat with his own testicles.

And my furniture thanks me for it.

[lutefisk]

89. Balls - do you think it is ok for cats in this country to own them?

Now that's a poll question.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. YEs! YES! yES!!! A ThOosanD TimeS YEs!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

73. Why only humans?

You know, if you gun control nuts don't let Bears bear arms, bears will just arm themselves with swords.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

78. Handguns are like Ford Edsels- We sure as hell don't need them

In my hometown in MN, after Pawlenty passed the CCW, all the places banned CCWS (workplaces, grocery stores, etc). The only place you can have CCW is on the street. It was kind of like, "WTF was the point of Pawlenty passing the CCW bill then?" Useless piece of tripe I've ever seen.

I've had my arguments and I've resigned to the fact that people really cannot read the 2nd amendment that well... it seems that "well-regulated milita" is just as ignored as the 2001 Anthrax attacks. You know it's there, but it seems to be forgotten.

There's a whole lot of ways to interpret the 2nd amendment, so it's not all that clear cut. Is it an "individual's" right to bear arms? That's a word that's missing... is "people" meant to be plural or singular? What about milita? Does that mean a group of people who get together to train so they can bear arms?

Geez... I can think of a number of groups that may fall under "milita" and I don't like them one bit.

[benEzra]

100. But a great many of us choose to own them, lawfully and responsibly...

Handguns are like Ford Edsels- We sure as hell don't need them

But a great many of us choose to own them, lawfully and responsibly, and WILL continue to lawfully and responsibly do so.

There's a whole lot of ways to interpret the 2nd amendment, so it's not all that clear cut. Is it an "individual's" right to bear arms? That's a word that's missing... is "people" meant to be plural or singular?

Compare the word "people" in the other amendments of the bill of rights. It applies to individuals.

What about milita? Does that mean a group of people who get together to train so they can bear arms?

Read what the Founders considered to be the militia (i.e., the populace at large; see The Federalist No. 46 and run the numbers). Or, look it up in U.S. Federal law (which defines the militia as all non-disabled males between 17 and 45). But the right recognized is not that of the militia, but of the people; an armed populace is a necessary precondition to the former.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

112. Hmmm

Why do you need handguns anyway? If you "lawfully own" them.... what exactly is their purpose?

Please don't tell me self-defense... that's such an overrated cliche and not even in the 2nd amendment.

[benEzra]

113. Thoughts...

Self-defense is the #1 reason for gun ownership in the United States, followed by recreational target shooting in #2 and hunting as a distant third. There are between two and three times as many handgun owners in the United States as there are hunters; think about the political ramifications of banning hunting, and multiply that by a factor of two or three, before advocating anything rash.

My wife and I both own handguns (S&W Ladysmith for me, Glock 26 for her), and have both been licensed to carry them. I also shoot recreationally and competitively (IPSC/IDPA style) with my 9mm. My sister (a professional engineer who lives alone) also owns a handgun (9mm) and is darn good with it; so do both my sixtysomething parents, probably half my coworkers, and a large percentage of the surrounding population.

FWIW, to obtain a carry license, I had to pass Federal and state background checks, have my fingerprints run by the FBI (clean), pass a mental health records check, take a course on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range (live fire), and pay lots of money in fees (the obligatory means test, which the deputy who processed my paperwork said ought to be eliminated).

Self-defense isn't just a "cliche" to me, or to most gun owners. My father had a "save" with a handgun when I was a young child; he never had to fire a shot. Very rural area, no police for miles and no way to call them if there were; his would-be attackers saw his hand on his holstered pistol, stopped, looked at each other, and left. Kleck et al estimate two million such incidents/yr, almost all of which do not involve shots fired; the gun-control lobby puts the number closer to one or two hundred thousand, which is still more than a "cliche." Whether or not to own a gun for defensive purposes is a deeply personal choice, a choice I would not dream of making for you, and a choice which I reserve the right to make for myself.

No, self-defense isn't mentioned in the Second Amendment, any more than art or political satire are mentioned in the First Amendment. That doesn't mean a ban on defensive-style firearms wouldn't violate the 2ndA. But even from a pragmatic standpoint, handguns and other nonhunting-style guns will NEVER be banned in this country; the percentage of the population that supports bans is comparable to the percentage who still support alcohol prohibition.

Nor is self-defense the only reason to own a gun; responsibly owned, guns are a challenging martial art, tools of personal security, symbols and tangible reminders of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines. And for the small minority who hunt or run farms, they are utilitarian tools as well.



As I have mentioned in other threads, there IS common ground to be found on the issue. The bedrock of that common ground is, NOBODY wants to see criminals misusing any guns. People who hurt other people piss me off just as much as they piss you off. We all agree that bad guys shouldn’t have them. The disagreement comes in when people on your side of the issue decide to slap sweeping restrictions on the law-abiding (the “assault weapon” bait-and-switch, handgun bans, pre-1861 capacity limits) in order to affect the bad guys by osmosis, which we are naturally going to oppose. Hence the impasse.

Lawful and responsible owners are NOT the problem. Bloomberg (no friend of gun owners) says that 90% of shooters in NYC murders had prior criminal records...

[slackmaster]

126. In my case, need has nothing to do with it most of the time

I collect and restore curio and relic firearms as a hobby and an investment.

I occasionally go target shooting, and sometimes use my weapons as tools for teaching other people how to handle and use them safely.

[Perry Logan]

79. More guns = more deaths

Harvard Injury Control Research Center:

HOMICIDE:
"Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

SUICIDE:
The preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United States.

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide.

For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

[Perry Logan]

80. Also: gun violence costs the US at least $100 billion annually

We won't concern ourselves with the children who get killed every year.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/economic_costs.pdf

[michreject]

84. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You're using the brady bunch to back up your argument.

:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[benEzra]

105. That's about as objective as an NRA press release. (n/t)

[FyurFly]

109. LOL n/m

[Mutley]

83. Yes

People who buy and register hand guns legally are not the problem in this country. And anywho, prohibition never stopped people from purchasing or using anything.

[Kazak]

97. I just wish they'd never been invented in the first place!

Can't put the cat back in the bag now...

[arrested_president]

98. Gun-Control Is EXTREMELY Important

you should ALWAYS hit what you aim at

[and-justice-for-all]

107. If people want to carry a gun...

I think there needs to be a more through background check prior to obtaining one, all the up to the FBI. If you have a felony record, then you should never beable to get a gun and if you are caught with one then its off to prison you go.

There just needs to be tighter restrictions when it comes to getting a gun. Wal-Mart and such should NEVER, EVER be allowed to sell firearms an ammunitions.

[michreject]

116. That's the law right now

I think there needs to be a more through background check prior to obtaining one, all the up to the FBI. If you have a felony record, then you should never beable to get a gun and if you are caught with one then its off to prison you go.

[Norwood]

110. A properly trained citizen has every right to own a firearm

[Renew Deal]

111. Once again, DU is far more pro gun than anyone knows.

It's been like this forever.

[benEzra]

115. Here's one reason why...

assuming the link still works:



Added on edit...darn, link appears broken right now. The image is a screenshot of a DU poll posted in GD, which after 775 responses, showed over half of responses owning guns.

Those who despise lawful ownership of civilian guns not speak for the party at large (or for progressives at large), as much as they may like to think they do.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[slackmaster]

123. I think a more fitting description would be "pro-choice on guns"

A lot of us support the RKBA for libertarian reasons.

[Vickers]

117. Of course.

I don't like seeing any restrictions on the Bill of Rights.

[EstimatedProphet]

118. humans are OK, but apparently we should keep them away from dogs.

[Rhiannon12866]

120. Nope. What would anyone need a hand gun for, anyway?

It's not exactly like the responsible hunters in this country, who kill for food, would venture out into the woods with a hand gun...:eyes:

And I'm a marksman, used to shoot competitively and am a former member of the NRA, but I don't think that anyone in this country needs to own a hand gun... I support gun control.:-(

[slackmaster]

124. Self-defense, target shooting, collecting...

There are many valid reasons to own a handgun, not that anyone needs a reason.

[FyurFly]

128. Bill of Rights, not needs n/t

[Rhiannon12866]

129. Target shooting is a valid reason, I agree. That's what I did, though I used a 22.

My point was that, with hand guns, too many people want them for all the wrong reasons. And way too many people who want to own a hand gun for self-defense don't know how to use a gun, which is more dangerous than anything else...:-(

My major gripe is really with automatic weapons, cringed when I heard my Freeper congressman going at it with Patrick Kennedy, saying that his wife needed one for protection here in the wild North Country when he was away in D.C., like we're pioneers facing renegade Indians, or gangs of stagecoach robbers...:eyes: And the man didn't live too far from me... :scared:

[benEzra]

130. Automatic weapons have been tightly controlled for 73 years.

My major gripe is really with automatic weapons, cringed when I heard my Freeper congressman going at it with Patrick Kennedy, saying that his wife needed one for protection here in the wild North Country when he was away in D.C., like we're pioneers facing renegade Indians, or gangs of stagecoach robbers... :eyes: And the man didn't live too far from me... :scared:

Automatic weapons have been tightly controlled for 73 years; possession outside of police/military/government duty is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

"Assault weapons," on the other hand, are non-automatic civilian guns, and include some of the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive shotguns in America.


The following is an "assault weapon" under H.R.1022:



That's my first gun, a Ruger mini-14 that I bought in 1989.


The following .22 is a banned "assault weapon" in New Jersey (preban Marlin Model 60), and bringing one into the state is a 5-year felony:

[slackmaster]

135. Automatic weapons have been strictly regulated since 1934

:hi:

[ManiacJoe]

133. Actually many responsible hunters do use handguns for hunting.

All it takes is the correct handgun and lots of skill at shooting and lots of skill at stocking your prey.

[1000evorlrak]

127. Yes...

And I don't much care for registration and would urge the individual to get training.

If every human has the right to self defense, then every human has the right to the tools necessary to effect self defense, and frankly nothing is more effective than a handgun.

[NuttyFluffers]

134. no, handguns should only be owned by albino shetland ponies.

humans are only allowed blowguns and tranquilizer darts. and if they're extra good, they'll be allowed NERF foam bats.

[slackmaster]

136. Blowguns are great but the darts are banned in California

:argh: