Legalities

People should be allowed to have handguns. The criminals have them and banning them is NOT going to take them out of the criminals hands, so what is the point.
This is the same kind of bs that bush has been using on us to get what he wants and now his cronies in the justice department are doing the same thing, taking away our rights.
Wake up America, the government is slowly but steadily taking our rights away and that is NOT a good thing. If we keep ignoring issues like this, saying "it is not happening in my town/city" we will lose all of our rights and then where will we be? Living in a dictatorship instead of a democracy.

Peolple are not allowed to own handguns. They are allowed to drive. The right to keep and bear arms is one of our fundamental RIGHTS. We have a RIGHT to own guns.

It is my right as an American citizen to bear arms. That means I have the right, not the privilege, not the allowed, but the right to own a gun. I shouldn't have to register it. I shouldn't have to lock it up unloaded. A right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I firmly believe that if our guns are taken away, only criminals will have guns because they don't care if the gun is legal. I firmly believe some of these mass murderers would have been stopped much sooner if they were not shooting in a "Protection Free" Zone. I look to Florida where gun laws were changed to uphold the Constitution and the crime rate went down fiercely! I do take exception to jc's remark that Republicans want to take away our gun rights. That is a Democrat stance baby. Not a Republican one.

I see the Mayor of DC is afraid there will be more private owership of firearms. Now he trots out the old tired and oh so very wrong fear that if there are more guns "Blood will run in the streets". Remember that one?

Problem is in every state which has a high rate of "right to carry" we see less crime. ( See More Guns Less Crime ).

Turns out that criminals, like most preditors, pick out the weakest of prey and leave those of us that fight back well alone. Imagine that?

New Hampshire was voted as the top safest places to live:

Do you care to know why?

Hi,

I am not a Lawyer--I say that as my first defense in support of my common sense. Jus prudentia, the art of applying philosophy to Law, and the Constitutional Law, in which outlines the rights and privileges we as Americans enjoy, seem to have been skirted, avoided and steam-rolled over, by...........well.........Lawyers--the very people with whom should be practicing jus prudentia--today, called jurisprudence. The FCC, was established to protect the "Meek" with ears of innocense, from being subjected to the big bad world of reality--foul words and real dead people smooshed by tragic instances of life, sex and drug inferences, etc...... While the 1st Amendment clearly states various rights and privileges, the FCC professes itself to be the "Moderator". "Moderator"? Isn't that like saying...........here, you can buy a car, but we the FCC will tell you how and when you can drive it? Now, here is my problem with this FCC entity.........who "Moderates" the FCC and then who moderates them and so on. Either we enjoy and adhere to the Constitution of we don't--especially the Government's Representatives who in their Affirmations of Office, swear to protect and uphold the Constitution. Err...........is that "censored" as well by someone or some group with initials. Well...........in 1939, "censorship" served Adolph Hitler very nicely, as he too, used "censorship" both as a tool of oppression, but also as a tool for propaganda. So, who is the FCC really representing? Laws, represent or are supposed to represent, the times of its peoples--Law, is after, "Social Rule". Is it possible that the FCC, represents a hidden agenda, in which Religious Right wing proveyors, seek to force their religious convictions unto others, through the use of the FCC as their tool for "censorship"? If Laws in America, do not represent the modern America, or support the Constitution under which its members swore allegience, and the Religious faction in America, professes greater rights, than those who are not religious, then how is the existence of the FCC, even Legal or Useful? I think it is not either of the two. I think, it is just another waste of Tax Payer monies, in which could go to Cancer research or other programs that are meaningful and much more "Constitutionally" riteful--not rightful. "Censorship" after all, my fellow Americans, is what our Forefathers meant to escape while under King George III. Our Constitution was written also, in order of importance--the 1-10 Amendments called our "Bill of Rights". As such, the FCC neither reflects those rights via the 14th Amendment, nor does it act, within jus prudentia--it is behind the times, by choice and not by mandate--therefore, it operates within its own agenda, which is evidentiary by its own bans and muscle flexing abuses of power. Just my thoughts..........although,I suspect we will have a FTC--Federal Thinking Commission, in which someday soon, we will be regulated as to what and how we think. By the way, as the addage goes............if a person doesn't like what is being televised, golly...........turn it off or change the damn channel. But stop enacting your ideologies, while denying mine--Hypocrites!

Here is another of D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty's quirky comments: "There are enough handguns on the streets...one can only imagine what would happen if you put more guns og the streets of this city." Fenty seems not to understand that a relaxation of Washington's stringent gun laws would not put more guns on the streets - it would enable law abiding citizens to have some measure of defense in their homes. As it is, only criminals in D.C. have guns. The city's citizens have to rely on a ball bat or nine iron near the bed at night. That isn't what the authors of the Second Amendment had in mind. There are sections of D.C. in which even the police won't venture at night. I don't know what Fenty's agenda is, but citizen safety isn't on it.

It's the same old argument begun after GCA '68. The people want to protect themselves and those in power are afraid of an armed populace. The Supreme Court will not make any ruling that will dramatically change anything, they always prefer gradual social engineering. Until we all learn about the differences between the rights of Citizens and residents, and which one we really are, things will remain the same.