I suggest that all professionals like, doctors and teachers, that recognize mental problems in people be required to report them. Right now they are actually prohibited from doing that.
Submitted by Raymond Kunz (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 1:28pm
You forgot to include the non biased clergy....AND a problem for the readers, just like myself, is that many of us with diagnosed PTSD, and compensation,
USMC 3 PH in RVN, might be in the lists of questionable ownership of firearms. I even worked 17 years as a Reserve Police Office even though I could never be full time because of another RVN disability-vision damage to the left eye and hearing loss in the left ear.
Unfortunately I have no trust in The Honorable Diane Feinstein as my Congressman to look out for my interests on this issue.
Submitted by Howard (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 3:00pm
You forgot to include the non biased clergy....AND a problem for the readers, just like myself, is that many of us with diagnosed PTSD, and compensation,
USMC 3 PH in RVN, might be in the lists of questionable ownership of firearms. I even worked 17 years as a Reserve Police Office even though I could never be full time because of another RVN disability-vision damage to the left eye and hearing loss in the left ear.
Unfortunately I have no trust in The Honorable Diane Feinstein as my Congressman to look out for my interests on this issue.
Submitted by Howard (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 3:00pm
No such thing as an assault rifle. Assault is a human vice, not a device. Over the years that's what the media has portrayed.
Now it's accepted as such. I suppose my knife sitting doing nothing in the corner is an "assault knife". Most polititions no nothing about fire arms. Next time you meet one, ask them to recite the 4 non nogotiable fire arm safety rules.
Submitted by Clark Reams (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 1:43pm
Why would you want the two most liberal professions in this country to be allowed to use their OPINIONS to take guns out of the hands of the people. I'm a responsible gun owner and keep mine in a locked safe, but I know my pediatrition would have them removed from the home to "protect my children." This is such a slippery slope that were treading on and as a country of "free" men and women; we shouldn't be careless in the surrender of any freedoms.
Submitted by JRA (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 1:59pm
Should we ban knives, hammers, axes, chain saws, bare hands, pencils... founding fathers knew the PEOLPE had a natural right for weapons to defend against tyranny.
Submitted by Rtjc23 (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 2:00pm
This topic is so much more complex than any responses above.
Do I believe in the 2nd amendment - Yes!
Do I believe all citizens should be allowed to purchase guns - Absolutely, with exceptions.
I also believe that no civilian needs or should own a fully automatic weapon.
We need common sense laws on gun ownership and who should not be allowed to purchase or own any firearms.
We also need to prosecute any weapons related criminals to the full extent of the law!
Submitted by Jime (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 2:01pm
EHR, Your right. Fully auto weapons are against the law as far as I know, and have been for some time. Some people though, are trying to convince us that an AR-15 is a machine gun and a weapon of mass destruction even though it's hardly more than a .22 cal. When I think of a machine gun, I think of the M60. Pretty tough to carry around.
Submitted by DJN (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 4:57pm
Back then they had muskets. Back then they also had horse-drawn carriages. I don't see anyone crying to limit the speed of cars or the size of the engines whenever a drunk driver/distracted teenager/senior citizen/etc runs down 14 bicyclists killing them, or runs through a street bazaar injuring dozens, or runs into a funeral procession in Orlando killing 2 more there.
Submitted by TK (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 3:47pm
To clarify: Yes I do believe in CERTAIN limitations such as no full-auto, must pass background, etc. But "no fly-no buy" is oversimplifying it. There are 6 month olds on "no fly" list, Ted Kennedy was on the "no fly", etc. And fighting the gov't to have your name removed from that list is NOT as simple or as cheap as the officials would like you to believe
Submitted by TK (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 3:53pm
I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment and a member of the NRA. We don't have a gun problem in our country, we have a people problem. Guns don't commit assault, people do.
Submitted by DJN (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 2:29pm
I support the 2nd amendment, buy a 410 over a 25 postol and you have a good weapon and a sure weapon. Those who go to firing ranges to g et there kicks off need some help
Submitted by Bob Franke (not verified) : Jun 24, 2016 5:48pm
I'm not sure who should make the decision for a person not to have a gun, a drivers licenses, a spouse, a job, a child, fly an aircraft, etc. I guess if you are going to rely on Mr. A telling Mr. B that Mr. C should be or should not be allowed to own a gun I have one question. Who died and gave Mr. A the authority, wisdom, expertise to make such a decision? What if Mr. A just doesn't like Mr. C?
Maybe since the 2nd amendment is such a bone of contention and we keep coming back around to the same old question thats being asked about guns again and again. I think the following should be required and will answer the question and put this issue to bed once and for all.
If a person wants to purchase a gun, any gun he/she must spend a min 2 years in the U.S. Militia (commonly known as the U.S. Military) defending his/her country. Since the U.S. is in a constant state of war getting experience handling a rifle, tank, missle, atom bomb, etc. in a 2 year period would not be hard to do. After discharge all gun owners must attend refresher training every 4 years.
This solution would satisfy the 2nd Amendment requirements not just of gun ownership but having a standing militia.
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 2:35pm
Not realistic EH. Not every American is military material. (Age, physical etc.) Although, some sort of firearms course should be made available before one could buy and own a firearm.
Submitted by DJN (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 4:11pm
I am a NRA member for over 50 years. Today this is not the NRA I joined. At one time they taught firearms safety, worked closely with law enforcement on training and were not political. The political stance was required because of attacks on gun ownership. Without the NRA we would be like England or Australia and not be allowed private firearm ownership.
However..At this time there really has to be some common sense shown by the NRA leadership. The semi auto assault rifle is becoming a real issue now and I would support a clear written moratorium on sales and registration of all current styles and modifications of the M-14, M16, the AK-47 and other high capacity firepower rifles. To promote a NO on control with the argument that maybe, just maybe one person on the No-Fly list might not be able to buy a gun?? This is beyond nuts.
I urge the NRA to help write the law before another mass killing and you are not allowed any say on what is written and passed, M1-A, AR-15 and AK-47 rifles are not needed for home protection.
Submitted by Howard Lew (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 2:50pm
You, sir, are a coward and don't have a clue as to WHY semi-automatic weapons have gained popularity. It's a little about self-defense and mostly about being ready with the best-available LEGAL firepower that CITIZENS have IF/WHEN the government decides to strip MORE of our freedoms from us and we decide 'enough-is-enough'. And it's you, sir, and others like you, who continue to vote with your emotions INSTEAD of your mind. Since when do you or any others have the RIGHT to INFRINGE on my rights? Who do you think you are? I am and will continue to be a person who swore an OATH to "...support and defend the Constitution...". I won't do harm to others in that process UNLESS they are part of the movement to DESTROY my America. I call those folks ENEMIES! You, sir, sound very similar to the current crop of ENEMIES...those short-sighted, bleeding-heart LIBERALS who think that taking away my INALIENABLE RIGHT (that's Creator-granted, not government-granted) to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS will make this world safer...well, it won't! In fact, all the GUN-FREE ZONES that these maniacs continue to target place all citizens at-risk...without ANY means to defend themselves. And it appears you, sir, may be a supporter of those Zones. Good luck to you, sir, when the government comes knocking at your door to confiscate your property, wrongly imprison you for your beliefs, or kill you for threatening their corruption. Think about what your vote will do down the road before you make another STUPID, UNCONSTITUTIONAL decision about MY RIGHTS!
Submitted by RI Red (not verified) : Jun 24, 2016 8:34am
Same as Switzerland. All able bodied people have a weapon at home. Do you see shootings by TERRORISTS there? Israel? All young people serve in the military, Reserves Included. They carry rifles in public, and am sure they have communications with the Commanders of their units.
Go ahead, sit in a bar, theater, restaurant.... When something happens, are we prepared? Use your hands, run? Not fast enough for semi`s. Paranoid? No. Ready is a much better answer. The police might be there in a few minutes.
Submitted by Jaker (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 4:46pm
Certain political figures in Wash. D.C. needed to get everyone thinking about something else, other than the verbal beating that The Donald gave our political leaders. Many leaders in Wash. DC didn't want the press to talk about all of the things that Hilary and others in Washington (both parties) have seemingly gotten away with. They needed to shift the focus. Nothing they did was useful except as a smoke screen.
Submitted by dave48195 (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 3:39pm
Let us require Military Training for every 18year old of some type, even as Medics, similar to the Swiss. Then require them to keep arms as the Constitution was based on the belief that all citizens actually are the Malitia.
Submitted by Old Warrier Bob (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 3:53pm
I'm convinced that anybody who MUST have a military-grade weapon (or two or three or more) to defend their home has a paranoia problem. When I was in the service (1945-1948, AAF) in Occupied Germany, we were threatened by the possibility of a Soviet invasion. But the only time we were issued weapons (carbines) was when we were assigned to guard duty, after which we turned them in. My home has been burglarized several times when I was not there, so I lost some nice cameras. If I had owned military-grade weapons, I would have lost those, too, and would be wondering if I had unwittingly upgraded my burglars to murderers. Do owners of such gear carry them at all times or have them constantly ready at hand if a threat emerges? I doubt it.
Submitted by RQ WW II (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 4:25pm
I'm convinced that anybody who MUST have a military-grade weapon (or two or three or more) to defend their home has a paranoia problem. When I was in the service (1945-1948, AAF) in Occupied Germany, we were threatened by the possibility of a Soviet invasion. But the only time we were issued weapons (carbines) was when we were assigned to guard duty, after which we turned them in. My home has been burglarized several times when I was not there, so I lost some nice cameras. If I had owned military-grade weapons, I would have lost those, too, and would be wondering if I had unwittingly upgraded my burglars to murderers. Do owners of such gear carry them at all times or have them constantly ready at hand if a threat emerges? I doubt it.
Submitted by RQ WW II (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 4:26pm
There are an estimated 300 million guns in this country with most in private hands. This is the best insurance against getting invaded by a foreign country. It is also the best insurance against our government turning into a fascist, totalitarian government. With our foreign policy of military interventions and regime change it is only a matter of time before we get more repercussions or blowback. What goes around comes around.
Submitted by LM (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 5:47pm
The polling question sounds like it was crafted from a politically left perspective. May I suggest the question be: With the recent mass shooting by a Jihadist - has your stance changed on the 2A right to self defense? May I remind politicians that are pushing "gun control", that they are doing so in violation of their sworn oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution; including the 2nd Ammendment. The laws defining the oath of office and the enforcement are 5 U.S.C.sec.3331, 5U.S.C.sec.3333, 5U.S.C.sec7311, 18U.S.C.sec.1918, and Executive Order 10450 which further specifies that any person taking the oath of office to advocate "the alteration...of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means is in violation. Our form of government can only be "altered" by constitutional ammendment. Violators are criminals. Veterans, remember your oath!
To understand where the gun debate is coming from, you need to understand the motive and strategy of "the long march". This is all clearly stated in the American Thinker article "The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party" by Scott S. Powell
One concealed carry gun owner could have stopped the Jihadist and there would not have been a mass shooting. We American gun owners are not the criminals; and the 2nd Ammendment by Constitutional Law, "shall not be infringed".
Submitted by Gary Greer (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 6:41pm
No patron of an establishment serving alcohol should be allowed to carry a weapon, for obvious reasons. Even in the Wild West of yore, patrons were asked check their guns with the bartender. There was an armed guard in "Pulse" who exchanged fire unsuccessfully with the Jihadist. It's wishful thinking to believe that "One concealed carry gun owner could have stopped the Jihadist and there would not have been a mass shooting." There was panic with the first shots and in the melee, there's a good chance a "good gun owner" would wound or kill innocent patrons, if he wasn't taken out by the Jihadist (who was no amateur, you know).
Submitted by RQ WW II (not verified) : Jun 24, 2016 1:33am
"There was AN armed guard in "Pulse" who exchanged fire unsuccessfully...". Unfortunately, it was a SINGLE individual who was armed and was WILLING, yet UNABLE, to stop the murderer. What IF there had been MORE THAN ONE brave, trained, concealed-carry CITIZEN? There's a good likelihood, then, that the situation would have been significantly different. I challenge any concealed-carry person to deny that had they been in a similar situation that they would not have engaged the terrorist. We carry because we want to be safe and protect those that we hold dear...and we train so that we can and be successful when/if we have to! Don't try to make a case that concealed-carry citizens wouldn't have made a difference, because they would have! You, sir, should apologize for your short-sighted, liberal-leaning rebuke of PATRIOTIC CITIZENS who stand ready to defend the defenseless against terrorism, criminals, and hatred for what we hold dear.
Submitted by RI Red (not verified) : Jun 24, 2016 8:18am
RI Red, you should apologize for your short sighted approach to this issue.
Case and Point.
If everyone in the club had been trained and had a CC permit they may have gotten the terrorist but they also would have taken out each other. You are assuming that it would be an orderly exchange of fire. I guess you have never heard of being killed by friendly fire, and you have never been in a fire fight. I'm not sure which would be the worst way to die, or is there a good way to die. I think it was Gen. G.C. Patton who said, "I don't want my men dying for their country I want the other SOB to die for his". Last, when the police arrive who do the shoot? How would they know who to shoot? Will it be mandatory for all good guys to wear a shirt with the word "good guy not a terrorist" written on it where the police can walk into a situation with 400 armed idiots shooting at each out and they would be able to pick out the "good guys"?
Since you are such a deep thinker let me know how you would handle that and I'm sure there's a place for you as an instructor for a security co. Oh, you would probably train a few terrorist accidentally as you train the good guys. I guess to make sure you don't train any bad guys when they enroll you could ask if they want a terrorist shirt to wear or a good guy shirt? Wasn't the Orlando shooter a Security guard? Would he have gone thru your training or does your training somehow weed out all potential terrorist? Which shirt would you have issue him.
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Jun 25, 2016 3:10pm
So EH,
Are you saying any armed citizen is an idiot and they will definitely shot anybody and everybody? Your comments don't strike me as a deep thinker either. I carry and don't think I'd blast anyone until I'm sure it's the right person to be blasted. Maybe the guy walking around with the rifle (not assault rifle) and was shooting people. To me common sense would dictate that when & if the police show up you put your gun down and hands up to show your're not a threat. I've never been in that situation but I think that's what I would do. I don't think I'd want you in my foxhole if I had a choice.
Submitted by Milt (not verified) : Jun 25, 2016 4:29pm
1. No, all armed citizens are not idiots. Only the ones who carry their guns into bars. I can't see what could possibly go wrong. I agree that really didn't take much deep thinking.
2. I'm sure you are a very thoughtful gun owner. If I were you I would be afraid of the gun carrier who is not as prudent as you. You know, the guy who trained but didn't comprehend everything the instructor said. The guy who mentally (not crazy) just shouldn't carry a gun.
You being the prudent person you are you would wait and pick out the terrorist carting the AR15. What if there is more than one and you only see one. You know the one with the AR15 but not the other one with the AR15. What about the other guy not so prudent who didn't see the bad guys with the rifle he just looked up and saw you with a gun and assumed you were the bad guy. There's that Friendly Fire problem that happens. Accidentally of course. See in the heat of battle things don't always go as planned. We all wish they would.
3. Yes, when the police show up if you are alive you put your gun down and stick your hands up. But more likely they pick your body up along with the other dead good guys.
You could be lucky and go unscathed in the fire fight. Then they pull a bullet that strayed out of a victim that matches your gun. For the next 5 to 6 years you will be in court explaining what happened, spending money on lawyers and maybe event spend some time in jail. This probably wouldn't happen to you but it could happen to one of the other 399 patrons who were armed that day.
4. As far as you and me being in a foxhole together. I would never get into a foxhole with someone so paranoid as to have to carry a weapon on their person to feel safe in civilian life in the U.S. or most civilized and advanced countries. I don't know why you feel so threatened.
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Jun 26, 2016 5:26am
When we start to allow our rights to be whittled away due to political correctness or a perceived fear instilled by a biased media and professional politicians, it will not stop until we are subjects and not citizens.
Timothy Mcvey did not use a firearm in Oklahoma City, the terrorists on the airplanes on 9/11 did not have firearms, the lunatic in China who stabbed 22 children in a Chinese school did not have a firearm. You cannot pass laws and restrict personal freedoms and rights and expect that to stop a mentally unbalanced individual or a terrorist with a death wish, they will fulfill their desired chaos because they are not only willing to die but in most cases are planning on dying.
The first, second and fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights are under attack from those that swore an oath to uphold and protect these same rights. How are you going to protect your rights with a musket?
The second amendment has nothing to do with self defense or protecting your house from criminals. It was to ensure that our government or another countries cannot take our rights and freedoms without us, the militia, being able to take up arms and fight.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Look up the meanings of each of these words, don't let a politician or lawyer, (same thing), tell you what it's supposed to mean. These are our rights, be very careful about what you are willing to give up because it will not stop with one little thing, and will be almost impossible to get back.
Will it make you feel safer? Do you think it will stop the next attack? Lunatics is hard to predict and harder to stop.
Submitted by Ping Jockey 56 (not verified) : Jun 23, 2016 9:08pm
We have bigger problems than Guns, Terrorism and a strong military. The problem lies in Washington D.C. with those who claim to represent their districts. In my 71 years of life I have never seen Legislators who refuse to do their duties. They don't have their districts needs in mind, they tend to listen to the rich and powerful who pressure them to make decisions in their favor.
Submitted by William Snodgrass (not verified) : Jun 24, 2016 9:45am
Let's be real. The biggest concern we have are the do nothing idiots in DC. If you think they are going to protect you, you are WRONG. As our Atty General stated a few days ago, "We need to understand why they hate us, and give them love". Political correctness, unlimited tolerance, and our sense to apologize for our strength, need to end. Evil is knocking on our doors and it is a matter of time, hope we are not hit to bad, but a bully can only be ignored for so long. I have been armed for over 30 years and will continue to be so. If you rely on the police or our leech politicians to protect you, you need to wake up. Stay strong my friends, but prepare yourselves.
Submitted by LL, usmc vet (not verified) : Jun 24, 2016 11:16am
Don, I like thinking having a firearm in your home is like having a fire extinguisher, Hopefully you'll never need it, but by God, when you do, you'll be darn glad you have it. I also agree with your policeman statement.
Submitted by DJN (not verified) : Jun 25, 2016 4:16pm
The ISIS terrorism problem will never go away until ISIS itself is eliminated, until then, I'll continue to strap on the old .45 wherever I go. (hope I never have to use it, but I won't hesitate if the need arises!)[wish someone in Orlando would have had one].
Submitted by DON C. (USN) (not verified) : Jun 27, 2016 6:29pm
The second amendment is for the protection of the American citizens. It's was added to our Constitution to prevent the government of the United States from overstepping their roll as the protector of our country from foreign invasion and central government of the States of the Union.
Before any further debate on the subject of gun control is added to this posting please read the full constitution of the United States of America and it's Amendments
It was written with the intent to not need (interpretation ) as is now being done to suit the needs of our current Leaders.
Please understand that! Our rights are being stripped away so that we the people cannot defend ourselves from a tyrannical Government.
That is why the second amendment was add to our Constitution!
Submitted by American (not verified) : Jul 2, 2016 12:37pm
Comments
I suggest that all
I suggest that all professionals like, doctors and teachers, that recognize mental problems in people be required to report them. Right now they are actually prohibited from doing that.
You forgot to include the non
You forgot to include the non biased clergy....AND a problem for the readers, just like myself, is that many of us with diagnosed PTSD, and compensation,
USMC 3 PH in RVN, might be in the lists of questionable ownership of firearms. I even worked 17 years as a Reserve Police Office even though I could never be full time because of another RVN disability-vision damage to the left eye and hearing loss in the left ear.
Unfortunately I have no trust in The Honorable Diane Feinstein as my Congressman to look out for my interests on this issue.
You forgot to include the non
You forgot to include the non biased clergy....AND a problem for the readers, just like myself, is that many of us with diagnosed PTSD, and compensation,
USMC 3 PH in RVN, might be in the lists of questionable ownership of firearms. I even worked 17 years as a Reserve Police Office even though I could never be full time because of another RVN disability-vision damage to the left eye and hearing loss in the left ear.
Unfortunately I have no trust in The Honorable Diane Feinstein as my Congressman to look out for my interests on this issue.
This issue isn't as black and
This issue isn't as black and white as this poll would lead you to believe and does a disservice.
No such thing as an assault
No such thing as an assault rifle. Assault is a human vice, not a device. Over the years that's what the media has portrayed.
Now it's accepted as such. I suppose my knife sitting doing nothing in the corner is an "assault knife". Most polititions no nothing about fire arms. Next time you meet one, ask them to recite the 4 non nogotiable fire arm safety rules.
Why would you want the two
Why would you want the two most liberal professions in this country to be allowed to use their OPINIONS to take guns out of the hands of the people. I'm a responsible gun owner and keep mine in a locked safe, but I know my pediatrition would have them removed from the home to "protect my children." This is such a slippery slope that were treading on and as a country of "free" men and women; we shouldn't be careless in the surrender of any freedoms.
All Guns should be banned.
All Guns should be banned.
Turk Lown, Bad idea. How do
Turk Lown, Bad idea. How do you do that?
Should we ban knives, hammers
Should we ban knives, hammers, axes, chain saws, bare hands, pencils... founding fathers knew the PEOLPE had a natural right for weapons to defend against tyranny.
This topic is so much more
This topic is so much more complex than any responses above.
Do I believe in the 2nd amendment - Yes!
Do I believe all citizens should be allowed to purchase guns - Absolutely, with exceptions.
I also believe that no civilian needs or should own a fully automatic weapon.
We need common sense laws on gun ownership and who should not be allowed to purchase or own any firearms.
We also need to prosecute any weapons related criminals to the full extent of the law!
Everything we are trying to
Everything we are trying to prevent is already against the law. And where were fully automatic weapons used in any of these mass casualty events?
EHR, Your right. Fully auto
EHR, Your right. Fully auto weapons are against the law as far as I know, and have been for some time. Some people though, are trying to convince us that an AR-15 is a machine gun and a weapon of mass destruction even though it's hardly more than a .22 cal. When I think of a machine gun, I think of the M60. Pretty tough to carry around.
I like this maybe we can
I like this maybe we can follow up
The 2nd Amendment protected
The 2nd Amendment protected the right of U.S. citizens to own muskets. Anything wrong with going back to the what the Founding Fathers wanted?
Back then, they only had
Back then, they only had muskets. I sure as hell wouldn't want to try to defend myself and family with a musket in this day and age.
Back then they had muskets.
Back then they had muskets. Back then they also had horse-drawn carriages. I don't see anyone crying to limit the speed of cars or the size of the engines whenever a drunk driver/distracted teenager/senior citizen/etc runs down 14 bicyclists killing them, or runs through a street bazaar injuring dozens, or runs into a funeral procession in Orlando killing 2 more there.
To clarify: Yes I do believe
To clarify: Yes I do believe in CERTAIN limitations such as no full-auto, must pass background, etc. But "no fly-no buy" is oversimplifying it. There are 6 month olds on "no fly" list, Ted Kennedy was on the "no fly", etc. And fighting the gov't to have your name removed from that list is NOT as simple or as cheap as the officials would like you to believe
You can protective yourself
You can protective yourself by many means, lights, alarms, and as before a 410 pistol . Not all this stuff smith and weston isa making.
I am a supporter of the 2nd
I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment and a member of the NRA. We don't have a gun problem in our country, we have a people problem. Guns don't commit assault, people do.
I agree with DJN, my comment
I agree with DJN, my comment is exactly the same.
I support the 2nd amendment,
I support the 2nd amendment, buy a 410 over a 25 postol and you have a good weapon and a sure weapon. Those who go to firing ranges to g et there kicks off need some help
I'm not sure who should make
I'm not sure who should make the decision for a person not to have a gun, a drivers licenses, a spouse, a job, a child, fly an aircraft, etc. I guess if you are going to rely on Mr. A telling Mr. B that Mr. C should be or should not be allowed to own a gun I have one question. Who died and gave Mr. A the authority, wisdom, expertise to make such a decision? What if Mr. A just doesn't like Mr. C?
Maybe since the 2nd amendment is such a bone of contention and we keep coming back around to the same old question thats being asked about guns again and again. I think the following should be required and will answer the question and put this issue to bed once and for all.
If a person wants to purchase a gun, any gun he/she must spend a min 2 years in the U.S. Militia (commonly known as the U.S. Military) defending his/her country. Since the U.S. is in a constant state of war getting experience handling a rifle, tank, missle, atom bomb, etc. in a 2 year period would not be hard to do. After discharge all gun owners must attend refresher training every 4 years.
This solution would satisfy the 2nd Amendment requirements not just of gun ownership but having a standing militia.
Not realistic EH. Not every
Not realistic EH. Not every American is military material. (Age, physical etc.) Although, some sort of firearms course should be made available before one could buy and own a firearm.
I am a NRA member for over 50
I am a NRA member for over 50 years. Today this is not the NRA I joined. At one time they taught firearms safety, worked closely with law enforcement on training and were not political. The political stance was required because of attacks on gun ownership. Without the NRA we would be like England or Australia and not be allowed private firearm ownership.
However..At this time there really has to be some common sense shown by the NRA leadership. The semi auto assault rifle is becoming a real issue now and I would support a clear written moratorium on sales and registration of all current styles and modifications of the M-14, M16, the AK-47 and other high capacity firepower rifles. To promote a NO on control with the argument that maybe, just maybe one person on the No-Fly list might not be able to buy a gun?? This is beyond nuts.
I urge the NRA to help write the law before another mass killing and you are not allowed any say on what is written and passed, M1-A, AR-15 and AK-47 rifles are not needed for home protection.
Well said!
Well said!
You, sir, are a coward and
You, sir, are a coward and don't have a clue as to WHY semi-automatic weapons have gained popularity. It's a little about self-defense and mostly about being ready with the best-available LEGAL firepower that CITIZENS have IF/WHEN the government decides to strip MORE of our freedoms from us and we decide 'enough-is-enough'. And it's you, sir, and others like you, who continue to vote with your emotions INSTEAD of your mind. Since when do you or any others have the RIGHT to INFRINGE on my rights? Who do you think you are? I am and will continue to be a person who swore an OATH to "...support and defend the Constitution...". I won't do harm to others in that process UNLESS they are part of the movement to DESTROY my America. I call those folks ENEMIES! You, sir, sound very similar to the current crop of ENEMIES...those short-sighted, bleeding-heart LIBERALS who think that taking away my INALIENABLE RIGHT (that's Creator-granted, not government-granted) to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS will make this world safer...well, it won't! In fact, all the GUN-FREE ZONES that these maniacs continue to target place all citizens at-risk...without ANY means to defend themselves. And it appears you, sir, may be a supporter of those Zones. Good luck to you, sir, when the government comes knocking at your door to confiscate your property, wrongly imprison you for your beliefs, or kill you for threatening their corruption. Think about what your vote will do down the road before you make another STUPID, UNCONSTITUTIONAL decision about MY RIGHTS!
All United States adult
All United States adult citizens should be required to carry a firearm.
Same as Switzerland. All
Same as Switzerland. All able bodied people have a weapon at home. Do you see shootings by TERRORISTS there? Israel? All young people serve in the military, Reserves Included. They carry rifles in public, and am sure they have communications with the Commanders of their units.
Go ahead, sit in a bar, theater, restaurant.... When something happens, are we prepared? Use your hands, run? Not fast enough for semi`s. Paranoid? No. Ready is a much better answer. The police might be there in a few minutes.
From where did that come?
From where did that come?
Certain political figures in
Certain political figures in Wash. D.C. needed to get everyone thinking about something else, other than the verbal beating that The Donald gave our political leaders. Many leaders in Wash. DC didn't want the press to talk about all of the things that Hilary and others in Washington (both parties) have seemingly gotten away with. They needed to shift the focus. Nothing they did was useful except as a smoke screen.
Let us require Military
Let us require Military Training for every 18year old of some type, even as Medics, similar to the Swiss. Then require them to keep arms as the Constitution was based on the belief that all citizens actually are the Malitia.
I'm convinced that anybody
I'm convinced that anybody who MUST have a military-grade weapon (or two or three or more) to defend their home has a paranoia problem. When I was in the service (1945-1948, AAF) in Occupied Germany, we were threatened by the possibility of a Soviet invasion. But the only time we were issued weapons (carbines) was when we were assigned to guard duty, after which we turned them in. My home has been burglarized several times when I was not there, so I lost some nice cameras. If I had owned military-grade weapons, I would have lost those, too, and would be wondering if I had unwittingly upgraded my burglars to murderers. Do owners of such gear carry them at all times or have them constantly ready at hand if a threat emerges? I doubt it.
I'm convinced that anybody
I'm convinced that anybody who MUST have a military-grade weapon (or two or three or more) to defend their home has a paranoia problem. When I was in the service (1945-1948, AAF) in Occupied Germany, we were threatened by the possibility of a Soviet invasion. But the only time we were issued weapons (carbines) was when we were assigned to guard duty, after which we turned them in. My home has been burglarized several times when I was not there, so I lost some nice cameras. If I had owned military-grade weapons, I would have lost those, too, and would be wondering if I had unwittingly upgraded my burglars to murderers. Do owners of such gear carry them at all times or have them constantly ready at hand if a threat emerges? I doubt it.
There are an estimated 300
There are an estimated 300 million guns in this country with most in private hands. This is the best insurance against getting invaded by a foreign country. It is also the best insurance against our government turning into a fascist, totalitarian government. With our foreign policy of military interventions and regime change it is only a matter of time before we get more repercussions or blowback. What goes around comes around.
The polling question sounds
The polling question sounds like it was crafted from a politically left perspective. May I suggest the question be: With the recent mass shooting by a Jihadist - has your stance changed on the 2A right to self defense? May I remind politicians that are pushing "gun control", that they are doing so in violation of their sworn oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution; including the 2nd Ammendment. The laws defining the oath of office and the enforcement are 5 U.S.C.sec.3331, 5U.S.C.sec.3333, 5U.S.C.sec7311, 18U.S.C.sec.1918, and Executive Order 10450 which further specifies that any person taking the oath of office to advocate "the alteration...of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means is in violation. Our form of government can only be "altered" by constitutional ammendment. Violators are criminals. Veterans, remember your oath!
To understand where the gun debate is coming from, you need to understand the motive and strategy of "the long march". This is all clearly stated in the American Thinker article "The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party" by Scott S. Powell
One concealed carry gun owner could have stopped the Jihadist and there would not have been a mass shooting. We American gun owners are not the criminals; and the 2nd Ammendment by Constitutional Law, "shall not be infringed".
"One concealed carry gun
"One concealed carry gun owner could have stopped the Jihadist..." Yup. Unless he/she were at the other side of the room and dancing.
No patron of an establishment
No patron of an establishment serving alcohol should be allowed to carry a weapon, for obvious reasons. Even in the Wild West of yore, patrons were asked check their guns with the bartender. There was an armed guard in "Pulse" who exchanged fire unsuccessfully with the Jihadist. It's wishful thinking to believe that "One concealed carry gun owner could have stopped the Jihadist and there would not have been a mass shooting." There was panic with the first shots and in the melee, there's a good chance a "good gun owner" would wound or kill innocent patrons, if he wasn't taken out by the Jihadist (who was no amateur, you know).
"There was AN armed guard in
"There was AN armed guard in "Pulse" who exchanged fire unsuccessfully...". Unfortunately, it was a SINGLE individual who was armed and was WILLING, yet UNABLE, to stop the murderer. What IF there had been MORE THAN ONE brave, trained, concealed-carry CITIZEN? There's a good likelihood, then, that the situation would have been significantly different. I challenge any concealed-carry person to deny that had they been in a similar situation that they would not have engaged the terrorist. We carry because we want to be safe and protect those that we hold dear...and we train so that we can and be successful when/if we have to! Don't try to make a case that concealed-carry citizens wouldn't have made a difference, because they would have! You, sir, should apologize for your short-sighted, liberal-leaning rebuke of PATRIOTIC CITIZENS who stand ready to defend the defenseless against terrorism, criminals, and hatred for what we hold dear.
RI Red, you should apologize
RI Red, you should apologize for your short sighted approach to this issue.
Case and Point.
If everyone in the club had been trained and had a CC permit they may have gotten the terrorist but they also would have taken out each other. You are assuming that it would be an orderly exchange of fire. I guess you have never heard of being killed by friendly fire, and you have never been in a fire fight. I'm not sure which would be the worst way to die, or is there a good way to die. I think it was Gen. G.C. Patton who said, "I don't want my men dying for their country I want the other SOB to die for his". Last, when the police arrive who do the shoot? How would they know who to shoot? Will it be mandatory for all good guys to wear a shirt with the word "good guy not a terrorist" written on it where the police can walk into a situation with 400 armed idiots shooting at each out and they would be able to pick out the "good guys"?
Since you are such a deep thinker let me know how you would handle that and I'm sure there's a place for you as an instructor for a security co. Oh, you would probably train a few terrorist accidentally as you train the good guys. I guess to make sure you don't train any bad guys when they enroll you could ask if they want a terrorist shirt to wear or a good guy shirt? Wasn't the Orlando shooter a Security guard? Would he have gone thru your training or does your training somehow weed out all potential terrorist? Which shirt would you have issue him.
So EH,
So EH,
Are you saying any armed citizen is an idiot and they will definitely shot anybody and everybody? Your comments don't strike me as a deep thinker either. I carry and don't think I'd blast anyone until I'm sure it's the right person to be blasted. Maybe the guy walking around with the rifle (not assault rifle) and was shooting people. To me common sense would dictate that when & if the police show up you put your gun down and hands up to show your're not a threat. I've never been in that situation but I think that's what I would do. I don't think I'd want you in my foxhole if I had a choice.
Milt let me address your
Milt let me address your comments one at a time.
1. No, all armed citizens are not idiots. Only the ones who carry their guns into bars. I can't see what could possibly go wrong. I agree that really didn't take much deep thinking.
2. I'm sure you are a very thoughtful gun owner. If I were you I would be afraid of the gun carrier who is not as prudent as you. You know, the guy who trained but didn't comprehend everything the instructor said. The guy who mentally (not crazy) just shouldn't carry a gun.
You being the prudent person you are you would wait and pick out the terrorist carting the AR15. What if there is more than one and you only see one. You know the one with the AR15 but not the other one with the AR15. What about the other guy not so prudent who didn't see the bad guys with the rifle he just looked up and saw you with a gun and assumed you were the bad guy. There's that Friendly Fire problem that happens. Accidentally of course. See in the heat of battle things don't always go as planned. We all wish they would.
3. Yes, when the police show up if you are alive you put your gun down and stick your hands up. But more likely they pick your body up along with the other dead good guys.
You could be lucky and go unscathed in the fire fight. Then they pull a bullet that strayed out of a victim that matches your gun. For the next 5 to 6 years you will be in court explaining what happened, spending money on lawyers and maybe event spend some time in jail. This probably wouldn't happen to you but it could happen to one of the other 399 patrons who were armed that day.
4. As far as you and me being in a foxhole together. I would never get into a foxhole with someone so paranoid as to have to carry a weapon on their person to feel safe in civilian life in the U.S. or most civilized and advanced countries. I don't know why you feel so threatened.
When we start to allow our
When we start to allow our rights to be whittled away due to political correctness or a perceived fear instilled by a biased media and professional politicians, it will not stop until we are subjects and not citizens.
Timothy Mcvey did not use a firearm in Oklahoma City, the terrorists on the airplanes on 9/11 did not have firearms, the lunatic in China who stabbed 22 children in a Chinese school did not have a firearm. You cannot pass laws and restrict personal freedoms and rights and expect that to stop a mentally unbalanced individual or a terrorist with a death wish, they will fulfill their desired chaos because they are not only willing to die but in most cases are planning on dying.
The first, second and fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights are under attack from those that swore an oath to uphold and protect these same rights. How are you going to protect your rights with a musket?
The second amendment has nothing to do with self defense or protecting your house from criminals. It was to ensure that our government or another countries cannot take our rights and freedoms without us, the militia, being able to take up arms and fight.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Look up the meanings of each of these words, don't let a politician or lawyer, (same thing), tell you what it's supposed to mean. These are our rights, be very careful about what you are willing to give up because it will not stop with one little thing, and will be almost impossible to get back.
Will it make you feel safer? Do you think it will stop the next attack? Lunatics is hard to predict and harder to stop.
We have bigger problems than
We have bigger problems than Guns, Terrorism and a strong military. The problem lies in Washington D.C. with those who claim to represent their districts. In my 71 years of life I have never seen Legislators who refuse to do their duties. They don't have their districts needs in mind, they tend to listen to the rich and powerful who pressure them to make decisions in their favor.
Let's be real. The biggest
Let's be real. The biggest concern we have are the do nothing idiots in DC. If you think they are going to protect you, you are WRONG. As our Atty General stated a few days ago, "We need to understand why they hate us, and give them love". Political correctness, unlimited tolerance, and our sense to apologize for our strength, need to end. Evil is knocking on our doors and it is a matter of time, hope we are not hit to bad, but a bully can only be ignored for so long. I have been armed for over 30 years and will continue to be so. If you rely on the police or our leech politicians to protect you, you need to wake up. Stay strong my friends, but prepare yourselves.
It's better to have a gun and
It's better to have a gun and not need it then to not have a gun an need it. The Police carry a weapon for there protection not yours.
Don, I like thinking having a
Don, I like thinking having a firearm in your home is like having a fire extinguisher, Hopefully you'll never need it, but by God, when you do, you'll be darn glad you have it. I also agree with your policeman statement.
The ISIS terrorism problem
The ISIS terrorism problem will never go away until ISIS itself is eliminated, until then, I'll continue to strap on the old .45 wherever I go. (hope I never have to use it, but I won't hesitate if the need arises!)[wish someone in Orlando would have had one].
The second amendment is for
The second amendment is for the protection of the American citizens. It's was added to our Constitution to prevent the government of the United States from overstepping their roll as the protector of our country from foreign invasion and central government of the States of the Union.
Before any further debate on the subject of gun control is added to this posting please read the full constitution of the United States of America and it's Amendments
It was written with the intent to not need (interpretation ) as is now being done to suit the needs of our current Leaders.
Please understand that! Our rights are being stripped away so that we the people cannot defend ourselves from a tyrannical Government.
That is why the second amendment was add to our Constitution!