GUN CONTROL...FOR OR AGAINST??

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

Well let's hear it. I couldn't believe there seemed to be gun control people here but I guess so. Just an informal poll to see where most of us stand. I personally am bigtime against any form (except to armed robbers and murderers on parole). Any thoughts?

-- Mike in PA (smfine@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002

Answers

I just found out, regardless of what happened with Dell recently, THEY ARE PRO GUN CONTROL. The HCI web page lists them in their "shopping mall".

-- Mike in Pa (smfine@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

this is much too simplistic. what is your defination of gun control? I have been a life long shooter. got my first rifle at age 10 and support the right of citizens to own and carry firearms. however it is much too big an issue to be unrestrained. we can't exist unless we are a nation of laws, and public safety if the first function of that government. there has to be some reatraint on individuals who are irresponsible and government has the responsible of inforcing that restraint. the question need clarification.

-- paul (vonmantik@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

I'm not in favor of any gun control laws, our state of Michigan has quite afew laws on the books now. Concealed weapons are now allowed, with proper training. The criminals can always get guns,laws will not help. Only education for those out there who don't know a thing about guns!!!! Most country folk have been raised around guns, again proper training and respect. It is a very important tool here at our place, rodent control, hunting, or house & livestock protection. My favorites are the single shot 22 and the single shot shotgun. My husbands favorites are a different matter altogether....as he is in law enforcement.

-- Suzanne (weir@frontiernet.net), March 01, 2002.

I should correct that first statement, I'm for some laws, but some are pushing alittle to far. Seems alot of laws have to do with getting more money out of the consumer also.

-- Suzanne (weir@frontiernet.net), March 01, 2002.

Gun control means law-abiding citizens loose thier right to bear arms, hunters and hobbyists loose thier right to hunt and collect guns. Gun control means people who know nothing about guns and weapons can feel really good about voting for something they know nothing about and criminals still have access to all the guns they want.

-- Wendy A (phillips-anteswe@pendleton.usmc.mil), March 01, 2002.


Lets see..I am anti gun control, anti over taxation of cigs, anti bogus laws and restrictions on alternative meds, anti abortion, anti NAFTA, anti open borders...whoa..and I was just getting started. Thanks Mike and others for caring about the gun issue. The point of my first sentence was..you may not believe in the rights of us who want to keep our right to bear arms..but if you allow our right to be taken..what right are you gonna feel strongly about and have it taken without so much as a whimper? Personally...beings only smokers and opened minded constitutional/rights people cared about the outstanding effort to which was put forth to crimanalize smokers and gun owners(legal mind you), I cannot wait for the new tax they are talking about in D.C. Seriously..they are thinking of putting an extra tax on fast foods that are not good for people. I wanna sit back and take it all in(I can do without that fast food stuff). They are also looking into overweight peoples health..ergo..watch your health/life insurance go to the moon if THEY deem you to be overweight. (luckily my husband and I are not overweight) Will I stand up for these two groups anyway???? YOU BET..even if they have left me on the proverbial limb with the cigs and guns.

I am just full of hot air today..sorry..but I am passionate about this.

-- Sher in se Iowa (riverdobbers@webtv.net), March 01, 2002.


I'll ditto what Paul said. I have a concealed handgun carry permit and was a hunter in my younger days. No, I do not belong to the NRA but believe in most of their doctrines. The biggest dilemna in Texas is the sale of firearms by private individuals. Lots of folks set up at a gun show to sell their "private collection". No registration, no waiting period, nothing. Causes huge problems and ends up putting guns into the hands of criminals and others who have no business owning one. This represents a huge misuse of the law and should be stopped. This is a turnaround in my thinking, but unfortunately, handgun possession, ownership, and sales need to be controlled.

-- SteveD(TX) (smdann@swbell.net), March 01, 2002.

I'm VERY happy to see some women that are anti-gun-control. Don't mean to stereotype but quite often females favor gun control ...statisticly.

Paul, Whatever you want it to mean.

-- Mike in Pa (smfine@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.


I think Mike, just in case you are interested, that if you look in the archives you would see that this particular topic has been hammered in to the ground in just about every mode that it can be discussed. :>)

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

Mike, I'm totally against gun control but you are distorting some facts. The website you mentioned is someones personal site. I looked into this yesterday. It is not owned or supported by HCI. That website is not HCI's shopping mall. I posted the owners name, address and phone number over on the Ruger board. It's just someones referral commission page and they've chosen to donate proceeds to HCI. You could make the same exact page and give your referal commissions to the NRA. Dell does not support or donate to HCI. Neither do most of those companies listed on that website.

-- Dave (multiplierx9@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.


Yes diane but new people, new ideas.

-- Mike in Pa (smfine@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

Thanks Dave. I'll check into it. Sorry if I had bad info.

-- Mike i nPa (smfine@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

Definitely in favor of gun control. One should always use both hands and make sure the gun is pointed in a safe direction until intended for use, then pointed only at the object targeted.

Seriously, I believe that the NRA and pro gun folks should go on the offensive and insist that safe weapon use and handling should be a mandatory subject in all public schools. Replace the condom classes with gun safety.

-- Mac in AK (nospam@aol.com), March 01, 2002.


This IS a simplistic debate.You are either for personal freedom AND responsibility or you are for restricting innocent people's rights.

I actually believe ANY person should be allowed to defend themselves,even ex-criminals.Once an ex-criminal is released from prison he/she has served their debt to society.It was only in '68 with the GCA that felons were restricted from owning firearms.

Commonsense gun-control is like commonsense taxation-it never stays that way for long.

-- Jon Hanson (warpaint@islc.net), March 01, 2002.


I AM Female! I got my first gun when I was eight years old. Gave it to my son when he was ten. Collected them ever since and have a permit to carry one. I was raised with guns, and wouldn't do without em. I NEVER picked up a gun in anger. Maybe cause of how I was raised. I do pick one up when I get unexpected company. hehe Seriously, I am not in favor of idiots with guns. Maybe we should give an intelligence test first. lol julie Oh, I and I do have a profession, so I'm not JUST a country girl. My Hubby's guns are bigger. :)

-- julie (jbritt@ceva.net), March 01, 2002.


I'll stay anon on this, but I want to say... My father-in-law was leaving the bank with his buisiness cash forced to shoot it out with an armed robber of the 'shoot first then take the money' variety. Four generations in this family are very thankful he had the right to carry that gun. I am a college educated woman, and I am opposed to gun control. On the farm, the guns are treated just like any other dangerous, but useful piece of farm equipment.

-- against (anon@anon.com), March 01, 2002.

How's this, I want to keep MY guns, but I want to pick who else gets to keep theirs! LOL

-- cowgirlone in OK (cowgirlone47@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.

I LOVE Mac's form of gun control! *grin* Seriously, I believe in that kind, but NO other form. When I was nine years old, my father was killed by a gun that was not being held with both hands and not being pointed in a safe direction when it was dropped. It was "only" a .22 rifle and was thought to be unloaded by the person holding it.

You may say, "Then just how in the world can you be against gun control?" Because gun control wouldn't have saved my father. It wasn't the gun that killed him, it was the lack of education on the part of the person who dropped it. It really bothers me that all the people who holler about gun control aren't saying a thing about gun education! Teaching people how to handle them. Teaching kids that it's not like the cartoons, the person who's shot won't get back up. Teaching everyone that there's no such thing as an unloaded gun. Teaching everyone that the only difference between a .22 and a .357 is that we could have an open casket funeral for my father.

If you're for gun control, please take a minute and think about why. I'm not asking you to tell me your reasons, just that you tell yourself. If what you come up with is to avoid horrible tragedies like the one that happened to me, then please know that any amount of gun control would not have saved my father's life. Gun education would have.

-- Wingnut (wingnut@moment.net), March 01, 2002.


Some great posts here. Some intelligent and informed people.

Mac, Funny. Good idea too.

-- Mike in PA (smfine@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.


I do not own guns, nor does my husband, but I am totally against gun control. While I might not currently have a need/desire to own a gun, I don't know what the future will bring and I want to keep my options open. If society deteriorates and I have to protect my homestead, I want to be sure that I will be able to get a gun from a gun shop or one of my neighbors if the stores are all closed because those that have a current interest in guns have them and therefore they will be around when I need one. Controlling guns only controls honest folk. Criminals will get the guns regardless of the laws. If honest folk can carry guns hopefully it will deter the criminal ones from getting too aggressive. So my vote is no gun control.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), March 01, 2002.

Against most forms of gun control. Did y'all know that if you are voluntarily or involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility, you automatically lose your FOID?

-- Polly (tigger@moultrie.com), March 01, 2002.

I am neutral, if that is possible. Guns are tools and people who need them should be able to get them, but there are some people out there who don't use them wisely. When my uncles were hunting they were taught that it was their responsibility to have control over their fire arm at all times, to only shoot at what they can clearly see, and to never lean a rifle against a tree (in case it gets knocked over it could go off), but I have heard a lot of stories about people who were not nearly so careful. I can see both sides, I guess.

-- Terri (hooperterri@prodigy.net), March 01, 2002.

I am for any gun control which hamper criminal use of guns. Period. Every citizen should have the right to purchase, possess and use a gun to defend their lives, shoot targets, and kill animals for their consumption. Period.

In short: own whatever gun you want. Use one to commit a crime, fry.

-- j.r. guerra in s. tx. (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), March 01, 2002.


I'm pro gun control.. but my definition of gun control is a lil different than most people's. I say gun control means hitting your target

-- Ben (b_dowell10@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.

Hey Mike, Here is something on HCI and Dell. http://delltalk.us.dell.com/messages/frame_message_view.asp? name=cs_general&id=zypbw&bandwidth=fra

-- Bob in PA (woods_hick@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

I am against any thing that makes me pay or someone elses bad choices, they should be able to do it, but the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for it, ...Stupidity is natures way of reducing the gene pool.

-- Thumper/inOKC (slrldr@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

Sorry about the dead link on HCI amd Dell. I think (hope) a copy and paste of this one will work. http://delltalk.us.dell.com/messages/message_view.asp? name=cs_general&id=zypbw

-- Bob in PA (woods_hick@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

Gotta go Bob ... will check later...thanks.

-- Mike in Pa (smfine@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

I go with mr. heinleins supposistion "that an armed society is a polite society"

really, laws are for law-abiding people and to give society a 'line' to punish people who have stepped outside the boundries/mores of a society. so i fail to see that laws to register or even background checks will help overmuch to curb lawless/dangerous use of weapons.

whereas the gun registration laws of germany & paris made it easier to pick out the potential troublemakers by those in charge....

i personally do not even think a preveously convicted felon should be denied the right to bear arms. [if they have served their time,paid their debt to society,gotten their right to vote/citizenship back that is! ] our founding fathers, were after all convicted by their lawfull ruler as being seditionists/guilty of treason!

btw, i'm a mother whos daughter will go to the firing range just like she did as a child to shoot & see what a variety of guns will do to to the paper target AND the head sized melons lined up.

-- bj pepper in C. MS. (pepper.pepper@excite.com), March 01, 2002.


As a Life Member of the NRA I'm pro-firearm. Heinlein had it dead on when he said, "A armed society is a polite society." We have only the rights we can defend.

At the same time, if we are to stay on the side of rightousness we MUST keep our facts straight. If we stoop to the lies and deceit of the opposition then we become no better than they.

Firearms ARE one of my homesteading tools.

.......Alan.

-- Alan (athagan@atlantic.net), March 01, 2002.


Sher, I agree with the taxes on alcohol, and cigs, but not on fast food. Why? You can survive without alcohol and cigs, but you can't live without food, and not only can you make fatty, sugary foods at home, people can gain weight eating too much fat-free stuff. Why should people who don't smoke and don't drink have to pay higher medical costs to cover those who do? Most smokers of my aquaintance are very obliging when asked not to smoke somewhere, and when we're all outside, I just try to stand where the smoke doesn't blow on me. I generally don't hang around people who drink at all. Only good use of alcohol for me is in chocolate truffles and spaghetti sauce...(grin).

As far as gun control, I think we already have sufficient laws on the books, we just need to enforce them more aggressively.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 01, 2002.


Didn't bother reading much, as this is just a 'hot-topic' button pushing type of thread. Clearly we need controls on items such as guns, but we should not eliminate the ability for average people to own guns.

I think most people who say they are for 'gun control' are really for 'gun elimiation.' We already have 'gun control' and some of those laws aren't bad.

So, I'm not sure your question is very relavent.

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.


I'm against gun control. But, I think guns should be used responsibly, by responsible people.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), March 01, 2002.

I am very against gun control. An interesting fact with regards to this is that the more gun control we have instituted the more we have needed it. My husband had an older friend who was raised carrying a rifle back and forth to school with him to shoot squirrels for dinner. Many a meal in his household was provided from his rifle. His gun was put away with the rest of his things while at school. Now we have children shooting each other rather than the squirrels.

I was interested in a post from Don Armstrong where he mentioned his being from Australia. Australia has recently went under extreme gun control. England has also done the same. Crime in England has skyrocketed. The criminals have the guns and the innocents pay the price. Hitler bragged that the his would be the first country where the streets were safe because of gun control. Hah! We all know where that went. Heck, China has great gun control. The government has them and no one else does. I guess that's why those poor people who stood for freedom got to die in Tieneman Square. How many crimes could be prevented if people were armed in the face of them. How many people died Sept 11 because not one person on those planes possessed the means to stop those terrorists, not even the pilots. "Oh, but then the would have shot holes in the planes." Better that than all those people dying in The World Trade Center. Now we stand in lines so that we can make ourselves even more vulnerable. Where once we were innocent until proven guilty and protected against unwarranted searches and seizure, now we are all guilty until we're searched.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@farm.com), March 01, 2002.


Thumper, would you clarify your statement, please?

-- Wingnut (wingnut@moment.net), March 01, 2002.

A gun in every house, ckicken in every pot!

-- woodsbilly N.C. Pa. (coleenl@penn.com), March 01, 2002.

I am female, I hunt, and I am against gun control. They'll get my gun when they pry my lifeless finger off the trigger.

Stacy in NY

-- Stacy (KincoraFarm@aol.com), March 01, 2002.


GUN CONTROL, is the ability to hit what you aim at on a consistant basis. I am for that kind of control only. It comes with practice and common sense, combined with proper education.

The folks who are too lazy and/or irresponsible to educate themselves and others will always whine for government to do it for them, poor babies. They deserve what the get, make that have gotten. Spell it Socialism. Just do not ask me to accept thier failures, and for that matter it is not my responsibility to pay for them either...

-- Ed Copp (OH) (edcopp@yahoo.come), March 01, 2002.


I am against gun control! I'm female(34 yo)and own several guns,both for protection and hunting.

-- Johna (marcnjohna@aol.com), March 01, 2002.

I am female and against gun control except for the insane and the proven dangerous.

That said, I'm sure gun control in any form will be highly effective.

Just like booze control was during Prohibition.....and drug control is today. Wonderful results.

-- gita (gita@directcon.net), March 01, 2002.


Ok happy to Wingnut, if some one wants to smoke they should be stuck with the bill for their bad heath, or go without,

if someone becomes too fat they should, should suffer the consquinces not the tax payers.

if someone dosen't work, they shouldn't have better than someone who does work, [at tax payer expence]

If someone wants to drive drunk, ride with a drunk, I shouldn't have to pay the hospital bill or pay the cost of their defence, if someone rides a motorcycle with or with out a helmet, and has a wreck without insurance, I don't want to pay for it with highter insurance and taxes to cover their care.

If I want to help then that is different, for family and friends I will go the extra mile, but when people go and make their mistakes over and over,....well I would have more money to help and feel more like helping more often if I had the choice of where my taxes went.

The gene pool remark is simple, if a person is going to do crack, or any assortment of other stupid things, they shouldn't be reproducing.

-- Thumper/inOKC (slrldr@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.


More specifically on guns, My right to have a gun shouldn't be taken away because of someone elses bad choices. Laws only work on honest people, and define the penality for breaking the law. The law doesn't stop criminals, but bullets fired from guns will.

-- Thumper/inOKC (slrldr@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

Okay! Then I agree totally! :)

-- Wingnut (wingnut@moment.net), March 01, 2002.

I am curious re Sher's stand and would like to hear more about her point of view. I think it is great that so many of us ladies can and do use firearms as tools and support the freedom to do so. My question is for Sher, you support our right to bear arms but not our right to decide it is no ones business but our own what we do with our bodies? Just found that interesting. Kind of a paradox. Love this forum, what a great place to discuss things! I would like to hear from more people who are FOR gun control though. I always wonder about where they are coming from. Maybe not many of them are Homesteaders or in that frame of mind(?). In our little town there is always someones place getting broken into and piddly little things get ripped off. Out here in the Country where we all have guns(and bad dogs too! LOL) no one is ever bothered. That pretty well sums it up for me. LOL LQ

-- Little Quacker (carouselxing@juno.com), March 01, 2002.

An observation from living in an area where just about everyone boast how young they were when they first used fire arms and how they've been around them all their lives, and everyone 10 years and older around here owns one.In the last 4 years , there has been 4 accidental shootings .One was 14 years old,a shootgun blast to his testicles.# 2 was a guy in his 30's who shot his foot ,another in his 30's who's friend shot off his arm up to his elbow,they were drunk and #4 a 22 year old shot himself in the shin bone with a 45. Only the one who shot his foot needed to be using a gun, he was hunting , the other 3 were just ,who knows what they were doing . These are people I know in a 5 mile radius from where I live.I wouldn't want my rights to bear arms taken away because I need my fire arms to protect me from law abiding citizens who are unstable and own fire arms.In times when they advertise on T V, medicines for chemical imbalance, depression, (mental illness ) like it's as common as a headache, we must think who is stable enough to own a fire arm, and who is likely to use one to win a point with a neighbor, ex friend,ex spouse or their ex boss.No one I know or heard about used a fire arm or needed one to protect their families or themselves from crimminals in the last 4 years here.I think the crimminals might stay out of this area because it's dangerous to many crazies with guns.

-- SM (unreal@msn.com), March 01, 2002.

I'm against gun control but I do believe that automatic weapons and maybe semi auto weapons should be controled. I believe in the right to bear arms but when our forfathers gave us that right, a good shooter could get off maybe 3-4 shots per minute. As far as hunting is concerned, I can't remember when I ever got what I was hunting on the second shot.

-- Paul (treewizard@buffalo.com), March 02, 2002.

The Right to bear arms is not in the Constitution just to to take up space. It provides us with the power of protection against tyranny should our Government steer away from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It also provides for our individual protection of person and property.

I wonder why the second amendment is the only one that gets attention requiring control, would the liberals agree that the right to a free press should also have controls placed on it? I don't, but if one of our Rights is to be taken I should also be able to restrain that segment of the population which chooses to do so.

Rights are Rights and they belong to no one except the individual, not the Government. The Government has no Rights only powers as defined in the Constitution.

So no Control whatsoever is needed. Just Commom Sense.

-- Wm. Rutter (wrutter@uniontel.net), March 02, 2002.


Hi Lil Quacker..I know this is a slippery slope, and I hate goin here but I will try to explain. In the post I wrote I was listing things I am for/against, like all people, I have my wants, my needs, my opinions and then I have my rights. In my thinking, I feel that to bear arms is a right..it was written down..2nd amendment..until and unless I break the law with a gun..I take it by the Bill of Rights that I have the right to bear arms.

I plainly am against abortion. Not because it is or is not legal by mans law...but because it goes (in my view) against Gods laws and commandments. Yes, it is your body..buy hey if you follow that thinking..the baby should have the right to be born, thus, if you take away the babys right..you have pretty well gone the route of picking and choosing who should live and who should die. I do not believe any mortal has that wisdom. Abortion, in some ways, makes me think of culling animals. To me that is a sad statement for mankind. I read on this forum all the time .. the great lengths to which most of you go to to save everything from fowl to cow..you try so hard to not lose a single animal and then I think how some so easily cast aside a human and quite frankly..I think it is a sickening, heartbreaking, and confusing situation. I often wonder if the generations of kids that have come after the abortion boom..well, if they have figured out that basically our society is as willing to throw them away as the garbage. I do believe abortion is one reason why people do not have that ...life is a precious gift..mentality any more.

Its pretty early in the morning for me to even try and answer this. Hope it helped. If you are trying to understand me..through answers I give..I will make it easier for you. I am a Christian and I try to live by the rules and laws of God..which do not always jive with mans rules.

-- Sher in se Iowa (riverdobbers@webtv.net), March 02, 2002.


Against! Governments that do not allow their populous to own guns have a nasty habit of controlling them. An armed populous (except for felons and murderers) is healthy in as far as it causes government to respect the freedom of its citizenry. Look at nations like China. Those folks can not own weapons and they have very, very little freedom. Our founding fathers understood the need for an armed populous. Writing the second amendment went way beyond the fear of invasion from foreign agressors too. They understood how government can and will encroach on peoples rights.

PoePoe

-- PoePoe (rpd932@yahoo.com), March 02, 2002.


Until most recently, I would be considered a person who was for gun control, simply because I was against the privated ownership of things such as the AK's etc. I would not hunt with one, do not need it to put an animal down, and really resent it when my neighbor shoots his off just for the fun of it. (very, very scary sound!!)

Most recent events make me wonder if the private citizentry might at some point need protection against their government, so my opinion is changing even on that. Being a Mennonite, I most likely will die before I shoot another human being, and expect perhaps eventually that might happen. My personal hopes are that I would die before that would happen, but I suppose everyone hopes that, so that is nothing original.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), March 02, 2002.


I live in Canada, the gun control laws we have could serve well as the wrong way to do it. Some people can own full auto's some can own .32 and .25 pistols, most can't and never can. Neither can thier children, unless your parent owned one legally then you can. This guns banned because it fires from an open bolt that one because it's short. 30 round clips are banned because they could be used by a mass murderer. Hasn't happened here but it might. All nonsense really. The permit to buy is OK, good even as it requires some training and might help the law abiding people. Safe storage laws are educational in themsleves. None of it makes any difference to criminals, or crime stats. We lose far more people to drunk driving but it's swept under the carpet for the most part. Isn't Chevrolet encouraging speeding and wild driving by making sports cars? Beer sold in cases or 24 encourage getting drunk don't they? Surely cupholders encourage you to put a beer in your car!! All nonsense based on corrupt statistics and warped conclusions. I registered all my guns, because it's the law. It's still stupid but it's the law. I vote too, that doesn't make any difference either by it's self but I get to grump about it.

-- Ross (amulet@istar.ca), March 02, 2002.

Coleen - would you put a sign in your yard "that you don't own any guns" ?

-- Elizabeth Quintana (rockshelter@webtv.com), March 02, 2002.

bumper sticker seen recently:

Gun con-trol' v.t. hitting what you aim to.

I laughed all the way home. Love it.

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), March 02, 2002.


I think gun control is an excellent idea. When I'm in control of a firearm, I AM in control of it - I know where it's pointing, and I mean it to be pointing there; and I know what condition it's in - loaded or not, safety or not, cocked or not - and that's the way I intend it to be - but I still check. And I know where my hands are, and unless I'm intending to shoot that's OUTSIDE the trigger-guard. Things can go wrong; my father taught me well; and I've seen enough potential accidents to have his lessons re-inforced.

A firearm is a power tool - an essential tool, but the job it was built to do is to kill at a distance. Nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that a responsible user needs to be well-trained and careful. I have seen the most horrendous liberties taken with firearms. People who would be careful with an electric drill which has an effective range of inches take liberties with a firarm which could kill at anywhere up to a mile or five - depending on the firearm and the load. In fact, I've taken to showing people an electric drill in action, then telling them they should think of a firearm as an electric drill with a drill that reaches out kilometres when you squeeze the trigger. That graphic seems to speak to them.

-- Don Armstrong (from Australia) (darmst@yahoo.com.au), March 03, 2002.


Hi Sher, thanks for taking the time to enlighten me. I am always curious about how people think(I guess 'cause I do so little of it myself! LOL ). This is off-topic but re people trying to "save" everything, culling is necessary, part of breeding and making sure the critters we develop stay healthy as possible and continue to do what we bred them for. I know you know this, I can tell. LOL Re us, we have very few natural controls anymore, we are circumventing nature as fast as science allows. Nature is not totally out of the picture though and controls are always being tested. It is natural for a crowded society to attack it's young. Just a symtom. Sad but true. Enough of that, this was a gun control question! LOL Loved the responses! Fun. LQ

-- Little Quacker (carouselxing@juno.com), March 04, 2002.

A point to ponder... When the Second Amendment was ratified, the state-of-the-art military firearm was on about the same level technologically as were the majority of the privately owned weapons...muzzle-loaders capable of a couple or three rounds a minute. Fast forward two hundred or so years.... Today's state of the art military weaponry so far outdistances anything that a law- abiding citizen can legally possess. Tanks, smart bombs, laser- guided missiles, smart bullets, not to mention the 10-15 round-per- second automatic rifles. The government has been doing an end run around the Second Amendment ever since the very first ‘gun control’ legislation was penned. Today, the average patriot on his/her homestead with any legal firearms is so out-gunned as to be inconsequential. Even illegal, automatic weaponry will not balance the scale, as several well-publicized ‘stand-offs’ in recent memory illustrate. The Second Amendment, for the purpose of opposing a tyrannical government, as the Founding Fathers intended, has been completely emasculated. Any comments will be read with great interest.

-- Whether, the weather wether (IllTake@TheSecond.com), March 04, 2002.

why not get rid rid of car control as well! the whole drivers license thing is just so they can take away my right to use an extremely dangerous thing without any restrictions. if you use guns for anything other than criminal purposes, there is no reason to be against gun control. it exists only for your safety and the safety of your children, and doest prevent anyone who has a right to from owning a gun. if gun owners want to be taken seriously, they have to be responsible as well. or has no one been reading the news? shouldnt there be some controls to prevent the school shootings and shooting rampages that have become an epidemic in the US?

-- paul in ny (panox@aol.com), March 04, 2002.

What "Whether" said! The 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, as Despicable Bill believed. If we were to follow the original intention of the 2nd Amendment, nuclear weapons would be allowed for private citizens. The intention was to allow the populace to have the ability to both fend off foreign invaders, AND to overthrow an oppressive government, such as we had from 1993 through early January of 2001. And while we are on the subject, the words "well-regulated" does NOT mean well controlled. It means accurate, in the vernacular of the day. Think of the old school clocks which were "Regulators". Or Jesse James and "The Regulators". A little known, forgotten piece of linguistic history as to a previous meaning of a word in the English language. For a more recent change in the meaning of a word, are you old enough to remember when "gay" meant "happy"??

-- Brad (homefixer@SacoRiver.net), March 04, 2002.

I agree w/ Paul. I am an avid hunter, have a concealed weapon permit and I am not at all opposed to gun restrictions or control. If you have nothing to hide why would you be against registering your weapons. True, it certainly would be an inconvenience but so is getting my drivers license renewed. I would be against someone taking away my right to have a weapon altogether however but I'm one of those people who doesn't feel gun control would ever get to that stage.

-- Larry in NY (streeter@northnet.org), March 07, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ