Google +LinkedInPinterestYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

Does the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others in Arizona suggest a need for stricter gun control laws?

Yes. There is no need for the types of hand guns used with an extended magazine to be so readily available.
12% (414 votes)
Yes. There should be mental health assessments prior to gun sales.
5% (158 votes)
No. This man was largely law abiding prior to the shooting. There was no way to know his homicidal intent.
14% (480 votes)
No. The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
70% (2421 votes)
Total votes: 3473

 

View more polls

 

bornagain71049

January 13, 2011 - 8:19pm

It's not the guns that are the problem. It's people who are misdiagnosed and let out on the street with mental illnesses. The boy had serious problems and the educational system and his parents didn,t do a thing. He should never have been given a gun license in the first place. Don't take away the rights of sane rational people who protest in the voting booth and not with a gun.

kr1948

January 13, 2011 - 8:37pm

I can see no reason why any handgun should have a 31 shot clip. Surely there is a compromise - I own 6 guns, but would never think of having something of that type. Mine are for hunting. I don't know what a Glock with a 31 shot clip would be used for - I guess if you came upon a herd of deer.

kr1948

January 13, 2011 - 8:37pm

I can see no reason why any handgun should have a 31 shot clip. Surely there is a compromise - I own 6 guns, but would never think of having something of that type. Mine are for hunting. I don't know what a Glock with a 31 shot clip would be used for - I guess if you came upon a herd of deer.

edodaniel

January 13, 2011 - 8:58pm

while kr1948 sees no reason for a handgin to have a 31 shot clip, I see no reason for a sport utility vehicle to have oversize tires or for a sports car to have a V8 engine or for a farmer to have two tractors.

Everyone who has any of those had a VALID REASON and that reason needs only consist of "because I want one."

Everyone does not own firearms for hunting and those who own Glock Handguns fall into the area of sport and defense rather than hunting.

Personally I can distinctly remember when I REALLY WISHED my M1911a1 pistol had had more than two 7 round magazines AND that the two I did have held more.

Wayne McCollum

January 13, 2011 - 9:27pm

I dont have a 31 shot clip either but i can see why a person could need one,cause he wants too mainly,it's their right.Or ,if 30 illegals had them pinned down and reloading a 7 shot clip would comprimise their life.the GUN is not the issue here,the media is,why do they keep showing this dudes photo on the TV,they've already made a martyer of him.thats what should be unlawfull,...

kalsop

January 13, 2011 - 8:58pm

The anti gun crowd will try to use this to further their cause, It is not a gun issue, there were clear signs of a mental problem here and nothing done about it. If He done this with his car would there be a movement to ban cars, I think not. It sadens Me to see people pointing fingers at their political oponents to blame it on them. People died here in a senseless act by a deranged young man and it should not be made into a political issue.

rforgy

January 13, 2011 - 9:01pm

The gun did not kill these people the man holding it did. Do not try to ban the gun ban the killer.

bigd

January 13, 2011 - 9:02pm

I see no need for citizens to own 500+HP Corvettes or million dollar cars, but this is America. We have freedoms until we forfeit them through our actions. Let's bring it home; there's no need for anyone to have more then two beers. Many more people are killed every year through the misuse/abuse of alcohol than are killed by accidental or intentional misuse/abuse of a firearm. If you regulate how many rounds a person can have in their gun magazine, then shouldn't you also regulate the amount of alcohol people can consume?

Sooners61

January 13, 2011 - 9:05pm

It's good to read all the comments and I agree w/ most of them, BUT that kind of shooting happens almost every single day in this country and outlawing firearms isn't going to stop people from killing one another! It should be noted that killing anyone is a BAD thing reguardless of the color of their skin or their job title or their age!

Ranger Bill

January 13, 2011 - 9:30pm

I understand that a number of our legislators are considering new laws because of this incident. When will they realize that laws only effect the lawful. Criminals do not and never will obey laws. Also, let me state that this was a very horrible event and my heart goes out to those that it touched but violance is perpetrated on innocent citizens every day and we don't see our leaders crying in Congress over these poor souls. Let us all put this in it's proper perspective. Ride Proud. Ranger Bill

garycrittenden

January 13, 2011 - 10:10pm

It's too bad things like this happen but anymore its almost a daily occurrence. It might be considered hard of me but I think that if a congresswoman and federal judge had not been involved, this would have made the news one and maybe two days and then forgotten.

rkeyrouse

January 13, 2011 - 10:18pm

These is already a law against shooting someone in the head with a 9MM hand gun. That didn't stop the shooter from doing it. Is there any one out there dumb enough to think the shooter would care if we passed another law or two regarding gun control. I don't think so.

doc5366

January 13, 2011 - 10:47pm

You can give ANY idiot a pencil and tell him to write with it, but does it make any sense for Congress to call a meeting and make a new law because the idiot used it to stab someone or poke himself in the eye with it? That does not make any more sense than our Government trying to change our Constitution, by making laws to our already known laws and rights. They do it every day and WE THE PEOPLE are stupid enough to let it happen.

saltydog

January 13, 2011 - 10:52pm

I support the 2nd amendment. However, just like other things in our life, there must be laws regulating guns. Every adult can have a concealed or not concealed weapon in Arizona due to lack of gun laws in Arizona (note that no citizen with a weapon came to the rescue when this guy was shooting everybody). Regulating the types of guns and banning the high capacity ammo clips is a must for a sane society. Also, as Americans, we should not be afraid to speak up about mentally ill people that appear to be a danger to themselves and others.

doc5366

January 13, 2011 - 10:59pm

You could have gave him a pencil and told him it is used for writing too, but that doesn't mean that's what he'd use it for. He may stab someone with it or stab himself in the eye. But does that make any sense for Congress to jump up and make a law against pencils. They have already made laws to try and keep us from our RIGHTS, the problem is WE THE PEOPLE for be stupid enough to believe everything we hear. Someone gets on TV and says something and the first thing without even thinking about it is"Oh yea, that's right,listen to him, he just said something stupid and I'm going along with him". Come on PEOPLE wake up and look at REAL issues here. GUNS SURE AS HELL AIN"T IT !

Azordie

January 13, 2011 - 10:59pm

I agree with bornagain71049 and the others such a wast of lives for nothing.
I will add that in the state of AZ you font need a permit to purchase a firearm.
We need to remember those lives lost and the ones who will recover.

dewellg

January 13, 2011 - 11:03pm

I appreciated President Obama's remarks last night in his eulogy and speach. This has been a horrible example of what happens when improper individuals use
violence to try to gain control over other citizens and/or situations. Our constitution is unique in all of the world. Too many of our citizens are willing to abdicate their rights and responsibilities it contains and delineates in order to let some one else do their job for them. I speak for myself, but I am a citizen first, a veteran, a father, friend, and many other things next, and I will not give away my right to do what I need to do to uphold my vow to uphold, live by, and protect the Constitution of these United States of America.

ODIN5043

January 13, 2011 - 11:24pm

Funny Law isnt it/ If the letter of this ammendment were followed we would have either a Dhotgun or a single shot rifle. No Im not anti gun, I can shoot a 45 Sharps 800 meters , and a TC 308 a good 500. I was Military ARMY and retired/ I also own a 1911. BUT why does a civillian need a fifty cal (BMG) rifle? Why a AK47? why ? Or a authority to carry a handgun! Keeping one at home is one thing, take it to the range ok, but in a concealed carry? It gives the anti gun folks good ammunition to follow Canada. My favorite by the way is a Uberti 1860 Colt repro 44 cap and ball beautiful balance , very accurate I would not want to be a villiian on the other end. Yes I considered a Taurus 410/345 for home defense but find a Coacj gun more realistic/ We need VERY STRICKT CONTROL or we all loose.

James V. Jordan

January 14, 2011 - 1:17pm

I can remember all the gun control laws that have been passed over 50 yr.s ,It always been we need this new law to stop all this crimes with guns ,did they stop these crimes or prevent murder,robbers,rape no they didn't ,they only left us defenseless .You need to understand that the gun control people make a living by getting money from people who wants the 2nd Amemd. throw ed in the thrash can so they can completely control you . they always want to pass another badly needed law ,then another ,then another,then another,then another .When will we get the ideal in our brains that these people don't want us to be armed period, not even with a slingshot.

PlaneGuy

January 14, 2011 - 12:54am

In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Timeless words.

PlaneGuy

January 14, 2011 - 12:42am

I can not believe the ignorance and hypocrisy that I am seeing here. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for DEFENSE, not for hunting, or recreational purposes.

I want to puke every time I see someone write
"I am not antigun, I own a (put weapon type here) but I don't see why someone should be allowed to own a high-capacity magazine." or "I don't see why someone should be allowed to own (or carry)a handgun". So, just because you don't see the need for it, nobody should be allowed to own or use it?

Let's expand your argument. Animal rights activists see no reason to hunt, or eat meat, should that be illegal? Environmentalists don't see the need for private ownership of cars, should we ban that too? What about alcohol, tobacco... or sex. Should this all be banned because someone can abuse it?

YOU ARE A SELF-CENTERED HYPOCRITE. I should not have to give up my CONSTITUTIONAL rights because YOU don't see the need for it.

MC

January 14, 2011 - 1:49am

Respond ONLY with serious, truthful answers... Ready? Here's the game...

That 9 year old girl shot in Tucson wasn't Christina-Taylor Green. Instead, it was your daughter (or grand-daughter). She had a bullet put through her head by Jared Lee Loughner and you just sat though her closed casket service. The funeral director couldn't show her pretty, silenced face in an open casket because of the damage done by the Loughner's 9mm Glock...

The 64-Thousand question is... Did your attitute change on gun control??

If so, why? If not, why?

logic101

January 14, 2011 - 9:41am

No, my attitude did not. My reason.. "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have some nerve to ask a question like that, not even knowing if someone's family member hadn't been killed by someone.

My father was killed by a guy who used a gun when I was a kid. Do you know whose fault it was? The guy's.

James V. Jordan

January 14, 2011 - 12:34pm

Mr. Green ,the father of Christina Green ,in a interveiw on the news ,said he did not want Christina to be remember by imposting more gun control and loss of liberty regulation on the american people .I think that is enough said on the subject.

SirVantes

January 14, 2011 - 3:00am

Hello,

Let's get a clue. The right to keep and bear a weapon, arms, in the second amendment, is bound to being trained and part of an organized milita. Read the WHOLE amendment

The majority of people carrying weapons have not been trained in any way or are members of a militia for homeland defense.

The short of it is that every person allowed to carry a weapon should First have rigorous training on how to use it. If failing that, sent back for more training until they can really be trusted with a deadly weapon in public, just as we do with automobile drivers.

It is time to require Real training before a weapon is sold to anyone. Training in handling weapons, How to defuse situations where weapons might be used

That restriction will save hundreds of lives in the first year just Fewer persons will want to buy them given the requirements of training

If we are going to let people carry deadly weapons among us they Must Be Trained so we are not shot by acc

logic101

January 14, 2011 - 9:46am

Washington, DC has a "no hand gun" law. What city in the United States has the highest murder rate with hand guns?

Washington, DC.

Yeah, let's restrict law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves.

Charles Carter

January 14, 2011 - 5:02am

To say that we need stricter gun control after the tragic shooting in Arizona does not address the real problem that brought this tragedy about.
We need to fix Congress and the dysfunctional political party system in Washington. To continue to do the same things over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity and that is what is continuing to happen in government today.
The fact that this deranged individual was pushed over the edge should ring alarm bells as to what pushed the final button in the first place.
To penalize sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, not to mention those that want firearms for home security, is wrong and fails to address what really needs fixing.
Every American has the right to bear arms and countries like Switzerland, where it is mandated that every household has one, has the lowest crime rate. Stricter controls is not the answer - if someone wants a gun, they will find a way legal or not.

Dave Heymes

January 14, 2011 - 9:19am

It dosen't matter if gun control is more strict. The bad guys are going to get guns anyway, and there are going to be more unforgiveable events. All the laws that were put into place to restrict gun ownership only help the bad guys and make victims out of the good. If you have a 20 round capacity weapon or a single round capacity...it dosen't matter. Gun control dosen't have any effect on a person that is focused on obtaining a gun and shooting another, or many others, they can get weapons by stealing them or buying illegally. If everyone in the world, in this country...even in my neighborhood, were totally sane and had no evil thoughts I wouldn't own a gun because I wouldn't worry about the safety of my family...but lets be real.

wohl1917

January 14, 2011 - 9:52am

The biggest threat I see here is not gun control it is how this incident will affect mental health issues in this country. I'm 'crazy'. People tell me I'm 'crazy'. How long will it be before 'crazy' people can be committed based on the unsubstantiated, uncorroborated word of anyone who 'thinks' you're dangerous? In a nation populated with cowards and slaves who've surrendered even the moral right to take unilateral action to protect themselves, their families or property from threats, how long will it be before 'they' take your right to do the same? How long before 'they' see 'you' as a 'threat'? "Guns are sooo dangerous that only a crazy person would have one!!"

Tim Foor

January 14, 2011 - 10:28am

The Shooter could've been "Neutralized", if one of the "Heroes" had produced a handgun. With proper Shot Placement, immobilized, without a deadly result.
The Retired Army Colonel, Fails to realize that once You Wear the Uniform. It is still within YOUR DUTY to Serve & Protect. Especially, enforcing the US Constitution & Bill of Rights. I would've thought everyone, here, would've recognized that Principle. Without having to recite Articles of the UCMJ.
But, also, I realize that some Folks aren't receptive to the Right of Keeping & Bearing Arms. So, YOU only have Yourselves to BLAME. Personally, I'd rather be judged by 12, than be carried out by 6. By the way, I'm curious. Did ALL you Democrats out there like Gifford, when she was a Republican ?

SawDust

January 14, 2011 - 11:22am

When Guns Are Outlawed! Only Outlaws Will Have Them! Then the chances of getting shot in your own home will increase too?

gunnut

January 14, 2011 - 11:32am

THE LEFT CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES WHENEVER A TRAGEDY OF THIS SORT HAPPENS.
WHATEVER THE CONSEQUENSES, THE FIREARM IS ALWAYS AT FAULT. OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS ALWAYS UNDER ATTACK
AT TIMES LIKE THESE, REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS.
AT 11 YEARS OF AGE, I HAD A BB GUN, AND AT 15, A 22
RIFLE. I USED TO GO TO THE LOCAL DUMP AND SHOOT RATS.
NOW, AT 74 YEARS, I SHOOT TRAP AND SKEET REGULARY AND FIND MUCH ENJOYMENT DOING THIS.
THROUGHOUT MY YEARS OF FIREARM OWNERSHIP,NONE OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS OR FRIENDS HAVE EVER BEEN THREATENED
BY ANY OF MY FIREARMS.
MY GUNS NEVER JUMPED OUT OF THE CABINET AND SHOT ANYONE,
AS THE LEFT WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.
THIS MAN SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE A
GUN! HIS MENTAL STATE DISQUALIFIED HIM!
HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN MENTALY DEFICIENT. SOMEONE DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS ONE, AT A
TREMENDOUS COST TO THOSE WHO WERE ASSAULTED AND THEIR
FAMILIES.
MY PRAYERS GO OUT TO THOSE AFFECTED.

IanDayre

January 14, 2011 - 1:06pm

I'll start by being honest about who I am. I haven't touched a firearm since I left the Army in 1977. I wouldn't have one in my home - statistics CLEARLY show that guns in the home are many times more likely to be used to kill or injure one's self, family or friends than to be used against a criminal intruder.

That said, hunting, target shooting and self-defense are valid uses. I don't advocate gun laws which would take away anyone's right to any of the above.

As much as I disagree with most of "gunnut"'s comments, I am right with him on this part:

THIS MAN SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE A
GUN! HIS MENTAL STATE DISQUALIFIED HIM!
HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN MENTALLY DEFICIENT. SOMEONE DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS ONE, AT A
TREMENDOUS COST TO THOSE WHO WERE ASSAULTED AND THEIR
FAMILIES.

But how were legitimate gun dealers to know this information? What reporting mechanisms are in place, in Tucson or YOUR home town??

Ken James

January 15, 2011 - 3:43pm

My sentiments about guns are just like yours. I am truly undecided about the mental illness part because there are degrees of mental illness. My brother is 70 years old and is schizophreic, and takes medication to control it. He has been robbed twice in the past two years. Once three men broke into his house and robbed him. The second incident happened a few weeks ago when a young man rode up on a bike and robbed him at gun point. He was roughed up the first time and almost challenged the bike rider to shoot him before turning over his wallet. Perhaps not having a gun saved him, perhaps having one would have helped him. I don't know the answer to this one but thought I would mention there are exceptions to almost every scenario. Nothing is as easy as it seems.

IASIOUX

January 14, 2011 - 1:58pm

Just as some people are not fit to serve in Military Duty , there are people who are unfit to carry a loaded gun or any other type of weapon . After my military service I graduated from both Undergraduate and Graduate College and worked in the field of Mental Health . Much of that time was served in the Maximum Security Units of Prisons and Psychiatric Hospitals, as well as Private Practice . Just as the military can screen-out most of those not fit , so can the legal system screen-out most of those unfit to have a license for a gun or any type of weapon . That screening will take time and diligence and will be frustrating to all involved . This is not a Constitutional Right issue but instead a Public Safety issue to help prevent innocent people from being murdered by violent incompetents and psychopathic killers .

smokejeet

January 14, 2011 - 2:42pm

some of you people really need to get a grip on yourselves. One says statistics state you are more likely to injure or kill someone in your family if a gun is in your home. Where do you get these stats? From the back of a cereal box.
You will never get my guns. I don't care if you like it or not. What happened is bad. This nut job will get what is coming to him with the laws that are already on the books. He will either get the death penality or life without parole.
If this were a republician would we be having this same dialog?
I don't hear anything about the little girl or the others that died, only the judge and the rep.
Sarah Paling didn't cause this to happen.
How can you blame someone else for someone else's actions?
If your so concerned with taking away all the guns no more second amedment. Let's take the first amendment away first so I don't have to read anymore of the garbage you are writing. Later Smokejeet from the Great State of Texas....

hondo

January 14, 2011 - 3:19pm

"If you give up freedom for safety, soon you will have neither."

swamprat

January 14, 2011 - 3:36pm

IT IS THE BILL OF RIGHTS, NOT THE BILL OF NEEDS !!! It's not about hunting or some bogus statistics long debunked, or what your personal likes are in the types of firearms .It is your duty to protect yourself and your family. We all lose if strict gun control is enacted, we are much less free if that happens. don't fall for the propaganda !!!

IYAOYAS

January 14, 2011 - 3:52pm

Statistics show that if a gun is in a home, the more likely it will be used to kill someone in that home or one's self.
Ban guns.
Statistics show that if a baseball bat is in a home, the more likely it will be used to kill someone or one's self.
Ban baseball bats.
Statistics show that if someone drives a car, the more likely that person will kill someone in that car or one's self.
Ban cars.
Statistics show that if a person flyes a plane, the more likely that person will crash that plane killing someone and one's self.
Ban planes.
Sound the same? Different?
Murder is already against the law.
If a person wants another person dead. That person will kill the other with a bat, knife, rock, poison, whatever.
Same story, different day.
Pray for the families affected by this tragedy, and all others that never make the news, let alone get a president to come to their memorial service.
Thank you.

hotwizard

January 14, 2011 - 4:09pm

sir!
Read the whole amendment THEN research just WHAT a militia, and the words well regulated meant back then. The militia was at that time ALL men 18 and over, and PRIVATE CITIZENS as well!! Well regulated meant well armed!The militia act that so many try to include in this amendment was not passed until many years hence. Nooooot to mention that SCOTUS has helsd that TRTKABA (RKBA for shorter) is a PERSONAL right! I've carried a weapon daily for 30 plus years, I fought for this country, and my rights. They can take it only "from my cold dead hands"!!!

delwarren

January 14, 2011 - 4:23pm

New laws do not need to be enacted. The current ones need to be enforced.

mpioso

January 14, 2011 - 7:59pm

In the past 12 days, we have had 12 murders. Not bad, eh? This is what we want and this is what we get. We have had more murder in this country since 1977 than all the dead in all our wars since the Civil War. Way to go America! You nut bags that want your AK's and Uzi's should shoot yourselves. Unless you are a part of a "well regulated militia", you do not have a right to arm your self. Read the entire article, please. Ooops! The text of many respondents herein indicate that many can not read nor write very well and perhaps that is the major issue?

The simple answer is to regulate the bullets and black powder. That is as close as will we ever come to making our beloved America safer. We will never remove weapons from our society, no matter what.

Our American arrogance will have to be modified for the death rate to ease and being an American myself, that will never happen either.

I am retired Army and live in fear of the nut bag with a gun, and there are millions of us.

RevJoe

January 15, 2011 - 12:10am

Based on your comments, I sincerely doubt your service to this country.

mpioso

January 15, 2011 - 1:54am

what you think. I did my time so that I could say what I want to say and I said it. If you follow the tracks without thinking about where they are going, that is your problem.

David McLeod

January 15, 2011 - 4:54am

I served my Country in the US Army for over 20 years, I liked my Job. As anyone will tell you, The person having to use a Weapon is the last one to request more Gun Laws. I fail to understand why some people will never learn that it is the people outside the law that always end up with the GUNS. I use my weapons and enjoy the comfort that I know how to use these for protection of my loved ones. GUNS DO NOT KILL,PEOPLE DO. Remember that the next time you read about a shooting.........

WilliamsRH3

January 15, 2011 - 7:48am

The results of the strict gun laws passed in England and Australia indicate that the only people left with guns will be criminals. Murder, robbery, etc, will increase. The nut-case in Arizona should not have been walking around without a keeper, much less been able to buy a gun. Where was the village that was supposed to be raising him? When Hillary Clinton quoted this phrase, I believe she meant; "it takes a Government to raise a child." Her crowd believes "Government Run" is the only way to control society. She believes in Government run health care, child care, gun control, and almost everything else. However tempting the ideal appears to be, there is a major flaw in her concept. You must decide the boundaries of your village and your society. Government should not do this. Examine the concept behind Mark Twain's quote, "Let me make the superstitions of a nation and I care not who makes its laws.." The flaw is in the village, not in the law.

ronkriel

January 15, 2011 - 1:44pm

Everyone writing to this blog has pretty much exhausted the pros and cons. One thing I have not seen though, is that if someone is willing to sacrifice their own life to kill someone, they will be hard to stop. I do think that there is one simple countermeasure that none of you have mentioned - metal detectors at the entrances of the meeting area. In this case, the shooter would not have made it past the door. These devices are not overly expensive and can be portable.

These are practical points. I do share the belief that the Second Amendment secures the right for every individual to carry weapons for defense. Hunting is a no brainer and the framers of the Constitution probably never even considered adding a provision for it.

Also, gun control will ensure that only criminals will have guns.

So, it is a tough situation and I, too, grieve for the tragedy and loss of life this person inflicted on his victims and the nation as a whole.

Ron Kriel
CAPT USN (Ret)

pctdon

January 15, 2011 - 9:07pm

I am retired from the WI correctional system and I did psychatric care. We do not need gun law changes. We need mental health care and it needs to be available. This person caused plenty of people to wonder about his mental health condition, and the school could have gotten an eval in AZ. Everyone looked the other way. It is cheaper to say gun control, than to pay for mental health care in the US. A person that cannot have a gun is called a slave. Donald Lison, Post #211, Florence WI

WhiteMH318

January 16, 2011 - 9:41am

I responded to this survey based on the question. No, there is no need for 30 rd mag. for hand guns. And, yes there is no need for assault type weapons to be sold to anyone and everyone (contracts with DoD even need tighting). Does everyone know about the data base that exist in Wash DC that the ATF has which lists the gun dealers who have sold over 60,000 assault weapons to others in Mexico? Why isn't some action taken on those dealers? Because, the data base is exempt under the FOIA by Congressional legislation. And it impedes the sales by dealers. Also, the DoD armories were once a target for thefts in the 1970's long before Iraq and Ben Laden. Wonder what the potential for threats to those armories would be if tighter sales of weapons were implemented. Of course the interested organizations would pour the money into Lobbyists to stop it.

oneshoeless

January 16, 2011 - 5:02pm

It is a slippery slope on which you walk. Anyone who fought in WWII understands that the first thing Hilter did was disarm the very people he wanted to conquer. You wonder why I pick this line of thought? That is exactly the slope you are starting on. I know people who use those "evil black rifles" for coyotes which are killing their animals.
Where do you stop... Is 15 rounds too many? How about 6? (The standard 1911 .45 handgun.) Who are you to decide.
I wonder where were the concealed carry people were that the liberal government is so concerned about having weapons? How different would it have been had just one or two men or women been there to quickly act and respond?
If you think no one wants to disarm the public, just look at Illinios. And yes the crime rate has risen drastically. No, we don't need to "ban" large magazines or black rifles, they are tools. We need more people who are willing to act as responsible citizens who carry to stop violence in its tracks.

oneshoeless

January 16, 2011 - 5:16pm

This is so true today.
As I read down the list of responses I cannot believe that Legionnaires could or would believe some of the things I am reading.
I wonder how many Trolls are out there making these posts!?

Can-man

January 17, 2011 - 7:21am

I find it hard to believe as well disheartening that on the American Legion site, we cannot get 100% response supporting or 2nd. Ammendment.
One of our Constitutional rights That I served to protect as well as millions more.
Think for a moment if our forefathers, The first militia of the Colonies. Which by the way were not organized until the need arose. What if they where limited to their arms. The outcome may have been different.

carlg

January 17, 2011 - 11:58am

Again the bleeding heart liberals that depend on the government for all their needs and protection, but dont support the military are sounding off. Any time there is a terrible occurrence of this nature, They again start their caterwallling.

We as free citizens have the right and obligation to protect ourselves. Yes the shooting in Tucson is a tragedy, but public officials I am sorry to say need to either have provided for them by the police at a public event or provide their own. Even one off duty police officer could of probably prevented this.

I live in Arizona and fully support our conceal carry option. Maybe if one of the liberal people attending this event had been armed this could of been prevented from being on the scale it was.

jimpajaro

April 14, 2011 - 4:59pm

Laws were made for people to help them live safer lives. We have lots of Rights that are limited especially when these rights infringe upon others negatively.

Just because we have the right does not mean we should give up our good sense. Do you really want criminals to have the right to bear arms? It is a right, well, it was until someone said, "why should criminals keep that right?"

So, when someone suggests that other intelligent exceptions be made lets not have a knee-jerk reaction and spout off with "it's in the constitution" and get all Timothy McVeigh about it.

Soldiers For Life

October 1, 2011 - 9:20am

You are absolutely right...the fact is there was a gun owner their that day who actually saw the gunman start shooting people and he had a weapon concealed on his person, but because he feared being charged with a crime himself he did nothing. People who have concealed carry permits and have a weapon with them should take action in a situation like that and stop the gunman by wounding or killing the gunman without fear. Gun laws made that man hesitate and because of it the gunman killed and wounded innocent people. I live in NC and NC has a open carry law and I openly carry my 45 pistol everywhere I go just because of the possibility of a shooting. I will not hesitate to use my weapon in a situation like the one in Arizona and further more I feel that military veterans should be able to get a conceal carry permit without having to apply for it. We have training !!!! God bless you for your comment and God bless the US.

flash

April 7, 2012 - 10:05pm

I would say that a handgun with an extended clip infringed on Giffords and the Judges freedom more than the Affordable Health Care Act does or would.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think