Serious question to those who oppose individual gun ownership...

[solinvictus]

I understand that many honest and well-meaning people oppose the right of individuals to own firearms. I also understand that this opposition has its root in many beliefs, the most prominent I've seen here is the overall safety of a society. I have an honest and serious question: if the American political process fails (more than it has, I suppose) and a standing president orders some form of martial law, what are your options going to be? What if, in a few years, Democrats are labeled as seditious? I want serious answers as to what you feel your individual options for escape, survival, or resistance are without firearms.

[LiberalVoice]

1. good question

I'll tell you this...If something happens and this country starts tearing at the seems you better believe that those pigs aren't coming into my house to take me away without a fight.

[liontamer]

2. If the federal government is after you

and they have the resources of the national guard, fbi, local PD etc at their disposal, how is having a gun going to help you?

[theycanbiteme]

11. Gee...

I wonder... You could at the very LEAST have a fighting chance to
escape.
Hitler disarmed the Germans YEARS before he came to power...and guess
what happened: nobody could make a stand. The Jews during the Warsaw
uprisings were able to FIGHT the Nazis and hold them off for DAYS
because they had weapons at their disposal.

I guess you'd rather bow your head...have them slap handcuffs on you
and your family and be taken off to a tortured death. So be it.

[SheilaT]

36. How could Hitler have disarmed

the Germans before he even came to power?

[benEzra]

54. Actually, the Weimar republic

instituted strict gun registration in the 1920's, as I recall. Hitler instituted gun confiscation measures when he came to power, and the German police used the Weimar registration lists to track down who needed a visit from the friendly gun confiscation authorities...

but the disarmament was indeed after Hitler came to power, not before.

[shleonny]

59. doesn't matter , it wouldn't have stopped him anyway

and in fact if the league of nations had kept up with its disarmament of germany ww2 might not have happened.

[benEzra]

53. Not much individually, but...

If the federal government is after you and they have the resources of the national guard, fbi, local PD etc at their disposal, how is having a gun going to help you?

Ramboesque fantasies of a lone individual holding off the "gubmint" are largely just that--fantasies. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that private gun ownership isn't a deterrent to the most serious oppression of its own citizens.

I think the main function of private gun ownership as a defense against tyranny is that it VASTLY increases the political capital (and police-state measures) necessary to carry out a tyrannical program. You'd have to have house-to-house searches by heavily armed agents/soldiers, massive surveillance, APC's and helicopter gunships patrolling the streets, and worse. If the citizenry were not armed, the most severe tyranny could be enforced by a simple police force, as it was in Nazi Germany, and the tyranny could be a lot less visible to ordinary citizens. The Nazi Gestapo were generally not heavily armed and didn't have to be; their victims couldn't fight back.

[Inland]

3. I didn't know anyone who opposes individual gun ownership. Period.

What has been advocated is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists, and registration to that end. I know that gun "rights" activists argue that registration of guns and removal are practically the same thing, but it isn't true.

[theycanbiteme]

12. The "government" has NO RIGHT

to say who is a "criminal" and who is a "terrorist". It goes against
individual RIGHTS.

[Inland]

17. See, that's exactly what I mean.

Being against criminals having guns is considered the same as being against anyone having guns by the usual gun nut.

Nobody says that there should be no individual ownership of guns. Nobody.

[theycanbiteme]

18. I pointed to the government...not YOU or any other

"gun controller" advocate.

[Inland]

30. Whatever. Its just wrong to pretend that

prohibiting criminals from having guns is the same as prohibiting everyone from having guns. I don't know anyone who advocates the latter.

[Union Thug]

47. Yes, the 'government' does have the right...

So long as that government is a democratically elected one whose actions reflect the popular will of the people and do not violate the basic operating parameters of that nation (read, constitution, bill of rights, etc.). We, the proverbial people, are the government, and as such, we do have the right to write our own laws (at least by proxy).

I own many guns (ones that are considered 'assault' rifles included) and I really have no problem with the laws as they currently stand. I thought the AWB was a huge waste of energy, time and money, but as for waiting periods, no sales to felons, etc., I have no problem at all.

[Billy Ruffian]

55. Where is the utility in a waiting period?

You said you already own many guns. What benefit does society receive if you have to wait to purchase another one?

I can put up with the instant background check, but not waiting periods.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Ed Schultz's slogan

Ed Schultz referred to himself (today) as a

MEAT EATIN', GUN TOTTIN' LEFTY

I love the Air America network, especially Al Franken, Randi, and Ed (I am an "Ed Head" ).

Thank God KGO's monopoly is broken and we now have KQKE

[expatriot]

5. they have national gaurd armories in the blue states too...

first of all, i don't know anyone who thinks people shouldn't be able to own firearms in at least some forms. I mean I think everyone thinks its okay to own a flintlock pistol from the 1600's. On the other extreme, I do not think very many people believe that private citizens should be able to freely stockpile top of the line military arms. So the term 'firearms' is very over-general. If worse came to worse and there was a martial divide between the red and the blue, hunting rifles would play a very small part. There would be a geographic break down of support, with all of the armories within a side's zone of control being under control of that side.

[MaraJade]

6. I don't oppose. . .

In fact, there is a .357 Magnum in my bedside drawer right now. And
I have hollow point bullets to load it with. . .

But that weapon is intended to defend my home should some idiot decide to break in.

What disturbs me about the gun-happy right is that they believe that
people should be entitled to have any gun they please. That's where
I part company with them.

Rifles, yes, pistols, yes. Semi- and Auto- weapons; HELL NO. Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. Those are for the military and law enforcement. I also firmly believe that there should be background checks BEFORE anyone can own a gun. Frankly, some people are too mentally unstable to own a gun--in particular, anyone whose philosophy is to "shoot first and let God sort 'em out," as NRAers like to say. Anyone who believes that
arguments should be settled by a gun is a piss poor candidate for ownership of one.

[benEzra]

29. "Weapons of war" are already restricted...

...by the National Firearms Act of 1934. No one is talking about military AK-47's or Uzi's or whatever; they are already covered by a law that's been on the books for more than seventy years.

What disturbs me about the gun-happy right is that they believe that people should be entitled to have any gun they please. That's where I part company with them.

I don't know about the gun-happy right, but I don't personally know any gun enthusiast who subscribes to this view as stated. Neither does the NRA.

Rifles, yes, pistols, yes. Semi- and Auto- weapons; HELL NO. Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. Those are for the military and law enforcement.

"Weapons of war" are automatic weapons, and as such are already restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

A semiautomatic firearm like my S&W 3913 9mm handgun (or my wife's Glock 26) is functionally no different from a double-action revolver like your .357; i.e., it fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time.

I also firmly believe that there should be background checks BEFORE anyone can own a gun.

As do I. And this is already Federal law; you have to pass a NCIS point-of-sale background check before you can purchase a gun from any gun dealer in the country, whether at a retail store or a gun show.

Frankly, some people are too mentally unstable to own a gun--in particular, anyone whose philosophy is to "shoot first and let God sort 'em out," as NRAers like to say.

The NRA doesn't say that, nor does any gun owner I've ever met. Although we are often caricatured that way. Even referring to a gun in the context of a threat is a crime in most jurisdictions; the laws regarding use of force are extremely strict.

Certainly anyone who believes that arguments should be settled by a gun is a piss poor candidate for ownership of one.

I agree 100%. And I've never met a gun owner who believed that way at all, though I've heard of criminals who feel that way. But criminals are already prohibited from owning guns...

[Billy Ruffian]

34. benEzra wrote out several of the points I was going to make

What's wrong with semi-autos?

I've got a number of semi-auto pistols. Why are they so evil, but a revolver is not?

Why is a semi-auto rifle so evil? They're just another tool.

[imenja]

7. I oppose murder

and there is far too much of it in this country. There is no question that it has to do with the mass quantities of guns floating around. I guess I don't understand why people feel a need to carry guns outside of hunting. I don't know what the solution should be. Obviously full-scale gun control would never pass congress, but something has to be done to keep the entire country from becoming a war zone. We had a number of murders--perhaps 20 or so--in West Palm Beach last month alone. When people start getting shot at the mall, guns infringe on my right to life.

[theycanbiteme]

13. But you are infringing on my Constitutional Rights

by not permitting me to own weapons.
If people want to kill each other...they WILL do it in any manner that
they can.

[imenja]

15. I'm not saying that

I'm saying I have a right to walk down the street without being murdered. Why can't people keep their guns in the house? Why do they need to carry them on the street and shoot people with them?
My right to life trumps your desire to murder.

[theycanbiteme]

19. What desire to murder?

Right there, you accused me of wanting to MURDER a fellow human being.
You did not state my RIGHT to defend myself, my family or my property.
Thank you very much...now I know how you think on this issue.

[imenja]

21. obviously I didn't mean you personally

I meant you in the general, specifically the people who use guns for violent crimes. I don't understand, however, why people carry guns on the street if they don't mean to shoot someone. Why do they need to? Guns are far more likely to be used against their owner or a member of the owner's family than against an assailant or intruder.
It's one of these things about American society I just don't understand, but I realize I'm on the losing side of the issue. Might triumphs, as usual.

[theycanbiteme]

23. My belief

is that the option of carrying a gun...and I would prefer openly, makes
people VERY honest. A hardened criminal will use whatever weapon he/she
has at hand to assault you. If you had the option to DETER the criminal
wouldn't you take it? Or would you prefer to suffer the assault and
then wait...sometimes fruitlessly...for "justice" to be made on
your behalf?

[imenja]

25. obviously that's is your right under existing law

I don't feel a need to carry guns and I wouldn't want to face the decision of having to use one. I dislike guns and will not have anything to do with anyone who caries one. I would never in one million years allow one in my house.
Large numbers of gun deaths are committed by people with no criminal record, often by accident or in a fit of rage. I prefer to avoid such circumstances. Since I don't carry a gun or have one in my house, my chances of being shot are far less than yours.
Why this rampant insecurity on the part of gun owners? No legislation has been offered in a very long time that restricts gun ownership. The assault weapons ban expired, and the Democrats never discussed gun control in this past election. It is less of an issue than ever. Wish as I might to do something about gun violence, I know I don't have any chance of doing so.

[Mark H]

37. The premise you put forth here is rather disturbing;

"I don't understand, however, why people carry guns on the street if they don't mean to shoot someone. "I appreciate your candor but I find the way you view me as rather offensive. I also carry a fire extinguisher in my car. That doesn't mean I'm going to set something on fire just to be able to use it.

[imenja]

38. if fire extinguishers killed rather than put out fires

I would question your motives. They aren't comparable. Guns inflict injury, even death. That is their purpose. That is what they are designed for. Evidently you carry it because you believe you will have a just cause for using it against someone at some point, likely an assailant. But the intent of the thing is still to inflict injury at the very least.
This is one aspect of American culture I simply do not understand. I don't think I ever will.

[Mark H]

40. The theory you put forth here;

"I don't understand, however, why people carry guns on the street if they don't mean to shoot someone. "

is that I am just out looking for someone to shoot. I have been in three armed encounters in my life. I never fired a shot. In two of these encounters, if I had killed the criminal I would have been fully justified. Because of the situation that presented itself I was able to take an extra second and the criminal retreated.


"But the intent of the thing is still to inflict injury at the very least."

The intent of the thing is to protect myself and those that are with me. It is the most effective tool available to do the job.

[imenja]

41. so why not carry ....

an unloaded gun, a good replica, or some mace equivalent. Obviously I conceded that you were likely wanting to protect yourself from an assailant, but your chosen method for doing so is also the most deadly.
When I used to work late at night and took the city bus for transportation, I carried some tear gas equivalent (whatever the stuff was that was legal in Minnesota). I remember being taught in a women's self defense class that I was far safer carrying mace than a gun, because a gun could likely be turned against me.
As I posted elsewhere on this thread, you are 22 more likely to have a gun go off in an accidental shooting or against a member of your family than to use it against an intruder. I dispute your contention that a gun does make you safe, since evidence proves the contrary.
Obviously none of that matters in terms of your legal right to carry a gun. I, however, will never see that right as justified. I, however, am powerless to do anything about it. Instead, I must watch my nation be afflicted by one of the highest rates of homicides in the world. You win. Our children lose. (I know you will find that point objectionable, but that is how I feel about it.)

[Mark H]

46. I'm sad to see you reach so far outside reality;

as to suggest an unloaded or toy gun. The only thing that kept me from a shooting situation in those three situations was that the criminals were smart enough to leave immediately. Had they decided to shoot, an empty gun, toy gun or pepper spray would have been silly to introduce to the situation.

"As I posted elsewhere on this thread, you are 22 more likely to have a gun go off in an accidental shooting or against a member of your family than to use it against an intruder. I dispute your contention that a gun does make you safe, since evidence proves the contrary"

You are more likely to cut yourself with a knife if you have a knife. You are more likely to be injured in a automobile accident if you ride in or drive a car.

"Obviously none of that matters in terms of your legal right to carry a gun. I, however, will never see that right as justified. I, however, am powerless to do anything about it. Instead, I must watch my nation be afflicted by one of the highest rates of homicides in the world. You win. Our children lose. (I know you will find that point objectionable, but that is how I feel about it.)"

I appreciate your premise more that you will probably know. I enjoy my guns, but I do not like carrying them for defensive purposes. First they are bulky and uncomfortable. Second the thought in my mind when I put one on is that throughout the course of my planned activities I may find myself in a situation in which I may have to defend myself or someone with me. That is a sad thought for me. If * gave more of a damn about jobs at home instead of jobs for haliburton in Iraq, this might not be the case.

The cat is out of the bag as far as guns go. The powers that be in this country cannot keep illegal aliens out of this country, they cannot keep illegal drugs out of this country and they cannot keep terrorists out of this country. If My access to guns is denied, it will simply give the smugglers another revenue opportunity.

We both must make a sad decision as regards to this issue. You chose to aviod those situations. I refuse to. If someone is broken down on the side of the road, I stop and help. I don't look at them, think they are too scruffy looking and drive on, I stop and help. I realize this is a risk, but it is a calculated risk. If I have to go to the "bad" part of town, I go. I'm not going to give an inch to the criminals and I'm not going to give an inch to *. (I guess that was redundant)

[sierrajim]

42. You answered your own question

People who go out and kill wantonly are already criminal's and criminal's don't give a rat's ass about gun law's.

[Romulus]

49. *my* right to life

trumps the right of the knife and nail-studded-board wielding anti-"ayrab" lynch mob to murder *me*.

That's why I have a CCW permit.

Not that my rights inferfere with your rights, esp. if you are talking about being worried about criminals with firearms.

Hope that sheds some light. :hi:

[imenja]

16. Besides, you have nothing to worry about

The NRA will be passing out Uzis to grade schoolers before any gun control is passed in this country. You have corporate profits on your side. You're safe.

[theycanbiteme]

20. I could care less about the NRA...or "corporate profits"

I detest the latter by the way.
My concern is: you get rid of the second amendment...you can kiss
all the other "liberties" that you think we have godd-bye.

[imenja]

22. no one is getting rid of the second amendment

Whether you like it or not, they are on your side. That is why you prevail.

[theycanbiteme]

24. "Why I prevail"...you make it sound disgusting.

And yes, the second is the main target.

[imenja]

26. well I guess I do feel it is disgusting

As I began, guns are used to kill people. We live in an extremely violent society. I don't like it. It's my right to disagree with you, even if I'm powerless to put it into effect.

[theycanbiteme]

27. Yes, just as you have the right to disagree with me...

I have MY right (as it is YOUR right) to carry a handgun. Funny how that
works, no?
And by the way, the world is a violent place as a whole and there are
many people willing to cause you harm. Whether they carry a gun into
your house or a baseball bat...it doesn't matter. They WILL harm you.

Why can't you understand this?

[imenja]

31. the facts, statistics about victims of guns

Here are the facts about the relationship between gun ownership and gun crimes. The evidence shows that having a gun in your own means your children are the most likely victims. You are incorrect on this issue, even if the politicians and corporations support your position. You may not care about these statistics, but they nonetheless contradict your assertion: "Whether they carry a gun into your house or a baseball bat...it doesn't matter. They WILL harm you." If you don't believe this report, check the Center for Disease Control Statistics compiled by the same government that protects your right to gun ownership and takes money from the corporations that advance that cause.


"A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.<2>"


(Kellermann, AL et al., "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." The Journal of Trauma, Infection, and Critical Care. Volume 45, No. 2, August 1988 )

Children and Teens
Firearm injuries in the US are the third leading cause of death among children aged 10-14 and the second leading cause of death for ages 15-24.<7>(CDC, NCIPC, Web-based Injury Statistics Query Reporting System, 2002)

A gun in the home increases the likelihood of an intentional shooting, particularly among children. Unintentional shootings commonly occur when children find an adult's loaded handgun in a drawer or closet, and while playing with it shoot themselves, a sibling or a friend. The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years is 9 times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.<11> (CDC, "Rates of Homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children - 26 industrialized countries." Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report, 02/07/97; 46:5. 101-105.)

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=home

[theycanbiteme]

32. Fact: parents are not responsible for their kids....

its shows in their lack of education...
in their lack of interest in their children's activities...
in keeping a safe home...

How about the stats showing how kids below the age of 25 years get
killed more often in CARS...? Hmmm?

[imenja]

33. parents aren't responsible for their kids?

sounds like abusive neglect to me. If they were, they'd do something about the mass proliferation of guns. Face it, you don't care about the gun deaths as long as you can play with your deadly toys.

[theycanbiteme]

35. Obviously, you have a very deep disdain for gun owners...

After accusing me of a "desire to murder" and your blatant disregard
to the second amendment...I think our discussion is over.
The Bill of Rights are there for a reason...not to be messed around with.
Not to be "modified" through "good intentions". Remember: the road to
HELL is paved with good intentions.

Have a good evening.

[imenja]

39. my response was unduly harsh

and juvenile. I apologize for it. You are right that I have trouble respecting or understanding the pro-gun position. For me, protecting human life is simply more important. We have extremely high murder rates in this country, and that disturbs me. Children who have arguments with their playmates pull out a parents' gun and end up killing each other. They are then put on trail as adults and if 16 face the death penalty. We institutionalize violence at every level of our society, from the justice system to foreign wars, in house and street. Something is seriously wrong here.
I truly believe the 2nd amendment is the least likely of the bill of Rights to be infringed. When Ashcroft insisted librarians and bookstores report on lenders, he refused to check into gun sales that might have been purchased by terrorists. You really have nothing to worry about. Your rights as a gun owner, according to our government, are more important than anyone else's in this country.

[solinvictus]

44. Guns and children...

Speaking for myself, I had limited access to my dad's guns from the age of 11. All the while, it never once occurred to me to use a gun to settle an argument. We don't have gun problems, we have parent problems caused by everything from working too many hours to outright indifference. Parents are entirely responsible for the actions (and for the most part attitudes) of their children. If a parent doesn't take the time to instill ethical values and to teach appropriate conduct, they have failed. When I was in high school (1988), it was nothing for many of us to have guns in the car anticipating leaving Friday for a Saturday morning hunt. There was never a single shooting in my school. Now, afte Columbine, kids can be expelled for nailclippers. It's silly.

[aikoaiko]

45. Respectfully,

I used my gun to scare away a bad guy and I didn't have to fire it. Lots of gun owners do, but don't report those facts.

Using a firearm doesn't allows mean shooting someone else.

[Romulus]

50. flaws in the studies:

1) never determined if the firearm was legally owned
2) only uses a body count to measure utility
3) lumps murders in with accidents for the "leading cause of death" stats
4) more exposure to firearms predictably leads to more firearm accidents, just as more exposure to cars leads to more car accidents, and more exposure to bodies of water lead to more drownings, etc. (CDC says that more U.S. kids are killed in drownings and car accidents than firearms, btw. Slack posted that here many times.)

[left15]

56. the conclusions drawn from these facts are flawed

for example:

"A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.<2>"

First, this statement assume a gun has no utility unless it used to injure or kill. That is not true. As others have stated, criminals can be stopped without firing a shot. This is also true for the police, must criminals surrender before they are shot. So right off the bat, this statement is comparing apples and oranges.

Second, half the deaths cited are suicides, and based on the way the statement is written, it insinuates the mere presents of a gun in the home increases the likelyhood of suicide.

I don't see any cause and effect. Certainly people will buy a gun to commit suicide, not commit suicide because they own a gun.

This is like blaming ice cream for someone being overweight, rather than realizing they are overweight and buying ice cream.

Third, you quote brady:

"A gun in the home increases the likelihood of an intentional shooting, particularly among children."

Again they are stating a cause and effect that is not present. Even if more intentional shooting (crime) occur in homes with guns, there is no reason to believe one causes the other.

People living in high crime areas tend to be shot at more, and also try to defend themselves more by owning a gun.

If police are shot at more than the average citizen, it would be silly to assume it is because the carry a gun, but the same logic is not applied to the average law-abiding gun owner.

To use another non-gun analogy, we could say that you are more likely to die in a hospital than at home, so if you are ill, you should stay away from the hospital. Of course we go to the hospital BECAUSE we are sick, just like some keep guns in their homes BECAUSE they live in neighborhoods that are being shot up.

[liontamer]

51. the difference in mindset on this thread

"And by the way, the world is a violent place as a whole and there are
many people willing to cause you harm. Whether they carry a gun into
your house or a baseball bat...it doesn't matter. They WILL harm you.

Why can't you understand this?"

I don't believe the world is a violent place on the whole. There are people willing to cause me harm, but they are not the majority.
There are people who would cause me harm if they had to. They might view me as a threat. They might want something from me and be willing to hurt me to get it. But there is no one in the world who actively wants to harm me.

Most violent crimes are perpetrated by family members or other people close to the victim. None of these people in my life want to hurt me. If I were mugged I'd freely hang over any belongings I had, I wouldn't risk my life for anything on my person. If someone broke into my house to rob me, I would try to hide or get out. I would not want to escalate the situation.

If I'm ever attacked, my number one goal would be to try to get away. I don't need a gun to do that.

By not having a gun I also avoid accidentally hurting myself, or people close to me. By not having a gun, I don't put myself into a position where I can panic and kill somebody because they want my cash. Just as nothing on my person is worth losing my life, it is also not worth taking someone else's life. No one deserves to die because they were greedy and came across the wrong person.

I have no need for vengeance and I have no need to live in fear. That's why people like me don't want to have guns and worry about people who need to have not just a gun, but many.

The level of anxiety that makes gun ownership an absolute necessity ("They WILL harm you") is scary.

[Union Thug]

48. This assumes that the pop guns that civilians can buy at the

sporting goods store have any chance against the high tech, high powered weaponry of a modern military. As a gun owner, I think this sort of argument is a naive pipe dream.

[solinvictus]

57. Tell that..

to the Iraqis who are sending our men and women home in bags. They have no high tech gadgets.

[Cooper]

61. like Vermont, or Alaska

or any of the states with CCW. you know, all those "war zones."

so you're afraid of murder, but you don't understand why someone would want to be armed?

[Pam-Moby]

8. This is the second thread about guns today,

I have a question. If guns are a big no no for the democrat party, Then why in my blue, blue democratic state of MI have so MANY CCW permit holders? Many of us here have concealed weapons. In fact a lot of them are Dems.

[aikoaiko]

43. I am a CCW.

Sometimes its my Keltec .380
Someteimes its my Taurus .357 snubby.
Sometimes its my Para .45 with the now legal hi-cap mag.

I vote democrat (mostly).

[Pam-Moby]

52. Me too

sometimes its my Keltec .32
sometimes its my Taurus .45
sometimes its my Taurus 9 mm
sometimes its my Taurus .38 snub

I always vote democrat

[Gothmog]

9. Just because I understand the literal words of 2nd Amend. does not mean

that I do not believe in gun ownership. The Second Amendment does not provide for an individual right to bear arms in my opinion. The only case to hold that there is an individual right is a Fifth Cir. case that is a joke in that the holding is dicta (without legal effect).

I admit that Larry Tribe is now taking the position that there is a limited or weak individual right to bear arms but such right is weak and that all current gun ownership regulations are consitutional in his opinion.

Just because I believe that the Second Amendment does not provide for an individual right does not mean that I support total ban on gun ownershuip. There should be reasonable regulation of guns and gun ownership on a number of matters. I own a couple of guns.

[stray cat]

10. I'm not against all firearms but where does one draw the line?

My own nuclear weapon for hunting and home safety would be useful in the case of martial law but I certainly don't advocate their personal use.

[slackmaster]

28. I think the line is drawn correctly now

Any firearm that uses fixed ammunition and shoots a bullet over .5 inches in diameter is legally classified as a "destructive device" and subject to strict regulation, like explosive devices.

Fully automatic weapons, short-barrelled shotguns, and certain kinds of unconventional firearms are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. People can own them in most states, but it requires a federal background check, transfer tax, and other requirements.

If you want to learn something about what laws are in place now, start at http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/index.htm

[theycanbiteme]

14. Here's my reply....

http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf

Enjoy...

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shleonny]

58. when are you going to finally do something?

ok for decades gun nuts have been screaming they would stand up for democracy, and freedom. Where were you when blacks and latinos weren't allowed to voted in 2 elections. Where were you when the government started a war in Iraq that will eventually kill 100,000's of innocents.