The Numbers

To understand this, try to frame it in your mind from what our founding fathers meant. All of it's citizens were the militia.

Our cousins carried their rifles on the high school bus to school every week so they could practice with the shooting team after school.

All the guns were stacked in the corner of the office during school hours. Most of the 600 boys in the school own a firearm.

In the 100 year history of the school, there has never been a shooting.

Just ban Minorities and Democrats from owning handguns. Also ban Democrats from religion before Democrats mess up that freedom also

Gun laws only apply to those who follow the law.

By definition, a criminal commits crime. Crime, by definition is any action against law.

So why is it that people believe that banning handguns or guns in general will make criminals not have guns? Many of them obtain them illegally in the first place. With the exception of crimes of passion. The gun was probably legally obtained and kept.

As for gun laws, the best way is to ban anyone with any criminal conviction from legally obtaining a gun. Period. This would remove any gun shop or show from allowing criminals to purchase guns. I believe that the mentally ill, in some cases should follow this rule as well.

As for the "right to bear arms". Well, it doesn't say "right to bear FIREarms". Just arms. Taken litterally, it can me that we all can have arms. You know those dangly bits with hands and fingers. But in context, it means weapons. Sabers were still in use at that time, possibly even Rapiers to a small degree, for those that could afford them. So in that, I keep arms in my home. I have two swords, which I'm fluent in their use, and multiple knives, not counting kitchen knives. This also means I'm rightfully aloud to keep the following as arms: Axes, War Hammers, any Asian weapon(too many to name), Swords, Maces, Clubs, Knives(including kitchen) etc. The list goes on and on.

If you want to outright take that ammendment out of the constitution, well, say good bye to your kitchen knives, as they are, being knives, arms. And no American would give up his or her right to keep knives or any other known weapon. Besides, you take all those away, we'll just make weapons out of other stuff.

Lawrence,

How about all states being required to have the same rules for purchasing a handgun, that would probably end school shootings, because these guns are being bought in southern states where you can walk in and buy one within a short period of time. Without any real background checks.
How about you own a hand gun you are also registered at a local Gun Club, because that's the only place you should be shooting it.

Law abiding citizens usually do shoot in safe areas designated as such. I wouldn't mind having a criminal background check. I have nothing to hide. Stricter laws in obtaining, like nationally mandatory criminal background checks, and gun registration would be awesome. But the current laws aren't really enforced anyway, so new ones shouldn't be brought about untill tighter enforcement is made.

There's also talk of keeping the assault weapon's ban. I completely agree with this. I served in the Army and know the devestating affect of these weapons. And as soon as you make them widely available to the common public(to my knowledge, any ex-member of the Armed Forces is permited to own these weapons, as well as gun collectors), more extreme cases of violent crime will occur, much like the crimes during the prohibition era, with automatic weapons being used commonly by criminals. I have no problem banning these weapons, they're used and specifically designed for war, not protection.

I understand where you're coming from Karin, and I agree, we need to mandate background checks, in gun shops, and at gunshows.

The second ammendment to the Constitution Guaranties the right for law abiding citizens of the Untied States to own and possess firearms. This is a great step into getting our gun rights to were they should be. Protect the 2nd ammendment. We as Americans should take pride in our rights. Banning Semi-Automatic pistol and assault rifles would be taking away our rights. Any firearm owned by a law abiding citizen will be used lawfully. More strict gun laws won't change crime, most criminals get their firearms from the black market of illegally anyhow. To prevent crime there is only one solutions, arm the law abiding citizens of America.

I am amazed that US citizens cherish the right to bear arms specifically designed to kill people when it so clearly tears apart the fabric of US society. I live in a country (the UK) where gun crime is very low, and the police have no need to carry firearms. This is mainly because guns are difficult to obtain and heavily controlled. I am more than happy with this control, and it has the added benefit that when the police are called upon to use firearms, the 'armed response' officers are extremely well trained to use them safely and few 'mistakes' are made.

I understand that the right to bear arms is historic, but it no longer seems to have any relevance. US citizens frequently tell me that they would need guns if they had to overthrow a corrupt government. In a modern stable democracy this seems absurd. The self defence argument is also misguided and there is an obvious link between having a gun in your house and people in it being shot. This is often when emotions run high and terrible things happen - we are human after all! I pray that I will never see a gun in my house, or on the local streets, and so far, so good! The UK is very far from perfect, but we have at least got this right.

I own a legal machinegun--in fact, I own two. I have been told that in the entire 70 year history of legal machinegun ownership, that LEGAL MACHINEGUNS have never been used in a crime. I don't know if that fact is true, but I've been told that from several independent sources, never-the-less, it seems unbelievable to me...

But, the problem lies not with the law-abiding citizen, the problem is lies with the 'criminal element'--whatever that is.

It is easier to restrict firearms than it is to define untrustworthy character traits--hell, we can't even define before-hand untrustworthyness in our own presidents.

Chris, we've had the right to bear arms for over 200 years. It was written in our Constitution. It's been there for over 200 years. We've all grown up knowing this, and knowing people who own guns. Thats why we won't get rid of them. It'll be a very dark day when that right is taken from us. Or, it'll be just like normal, where we Americans just give up our rights, just like we've been doing the past 8 years. I know that the UK doesn't have any guns for it's citizens, and that guns are very hard to come by. But there are millions of guns in the US. There is no way that you could get rid of them all. Even if we had that right taken from us. Owners would keep them, against the law, because it is a right of humanity to own whatever he or she wants. You have that right as well, it's just that you and your fellow countrymen don't mind the government keeping that right from you.

Phil, I was actually unaware of Legal Automatic weapons. Care to elaborate on where I can find information regaurding these laws? I do agree that the problem is criminals, not the law-abiding citizens. Which is why I don't like gun control laws. They only work for good people, not criminals. But registration and criminal checks must be enforced.

Brian, that was great. I think you should write your Congressman about that.

just to let karin and lawrence know ....the federal goverment already requires an instant background check to purchase any long gun. at a gun shop, gun show, or a private sale between friends. i have been checked many times.
Assault weapons as defined in the ban where semi automatic guns with large clips not full auto m-16's and a-k's like the media wants you to think. there are plenty of laws on the books. the guy at virginia tech passed a background check.what good did that do he was a nut but virginia forgot to tell the feds ....if they apply the existing laws properly they can do alot ...

No doubt if existing laws were enforced, many people who shouldn't have guns, wouldn't. I didn't know that about the M-16's and such. I've had a hard time finding such information. Can anyone give me a clue as to where it is? I'd sure like to be informed when I post, so I don't look like an idiot.

It seems that Americans have the most basic of rights anymore. We should keep them. There is a bumper sticker floating around saying "America I love,it's the government I fear". We should be fearful of our government,they should help in running the country.so my suggestion to all the Senators,Representatives and our future President,get off your agendas filled asses and get to work.

it sad that 4 supreme court justices vote against constution rights. they do not protect our rights

What is sad is that Congress is so worried about pi$$ing off voters or just too darn lazy to uphold Our Constitutional Rights that they dump it on the Supreme Court, the branch of government that has no business legislating in the first place.

Before we carried guns to protect ourselveswe carried swordsBefore swords werespears and clubs. Before that we were not yet on the top of the food chain. True not everyone should have guns, but I should be able to protect myself in an efficient and portable way. Even the most highly skilled practitioner of the martial arts cannot fully defend himself from a surprise attack by an armed assailant. Nor should we inspire false confidence in our children by training them to believe they can fend off such determined attackers singularly or in cases where there are multiple assailants. A portable weapon that can be used accurately and repeatedly is simply the fruition of thousands of years of technology. Criminals have no respect for laws. They have no fear of imprisonment. But they do fear being shot on the spot. In states that ban the right to carry the criminals know their victims are not carrying guns and take that risk. thats why D.C. and Newark N.J. top the murder list. Its time for the rational minded people to elect realistic lawmakers and truly step into the 21st century.

Duane, you have it wrong. It should read like this:

People shouldn't fear their government, Government should fear it's people.

Can't remember where I heard that, but thats how it's supposed to be.

Karin what more would you like to be done? In all legal firearm sales from authorized sellers across the nation the purchaser has to fill out a form (falsifying information on the form is illegal and noted on the form) which is used not only to document the sale of the firearm but to also perform a background check with NCIC (a government body who attempts to keep current a computerized database of criminals as well as those who have been deemed unable to obtain firearms [i.e. those who are dishonorably discharged from the military, have a protective order against them, etc.]). NCIC background checks take about 30 - 90 seconds and in some cases the NCIC will place a hold on the sale of the firearm if flags arise about the purchaser. In the event that the person who is attempting to purchase the firearm is a criminal, the state police for the state of attempted purchase are notified and dispatched to the location of attempted sale in most cases.

As to the gun show babble, most states require gun sales at gun shows to perform the exact same background check (NCIC) as if they were actual store purchases. This is also why most gun shows only allow dealers from within the state that the show is taking place in; however, some exceptions do happen but all legitimate dealers must perform the background check call in. In most cases private sales of firearms are not allowed within or outside of the gun shows due to legalities (i.e. attempting to prevent straw man purchases).

One possible loophole that exists in the transfer of a firearm is the personal sale in most states. Each state has their own laws based upon the sale of firearms (both long and handgun) to which some require that all transfers be documented through a current FFL (Federal Firearm License - allows dealers to legally sell firearms as well as purchase firearms across state lines [including internet]) permit holder to which the transfer is processed much like a store front sale (meaning NCIC check). Other states specify only handguns need a documented transfer when a private sale/trade happen while some states don't require documentation of any private (meaning person to person) firearm sale. Legitimate firearm dealers are typically prohibited from private sales of firearms in their store.

The second possible loophole in the transfer of a firearm is the purchase of said firearm that is then given to another person. Few states allow individuals to purchase a firearm for another person (as in gift) and are usually restricted to long guns (shotguns and rifles); however, in most states it's against the law to purchase a firearm for a person who would typically not be able to obtain one themselves legally. This type of transfer is sometimes referred to as the Straw Man law and punishments for such actions vary by state.

As to the mentally ill, well each state has their own rules about how they report and what is reported to such bodies as NCIC. In the case of Virginia Tech the state failed to tag Cho as having a judgment against him for mental issues that would have prevented the legal purchase of firearms to him. This isn't to say that Cho was going to kill regardless what method was chosen or that he could have had somebody else purchase the weapons for him; however, he wouldn't have been able to do so legally. As tragic as the events of VT were it's unfortunate that some states are afraid that adding a mental tag to a person's files (in such as the NCIC) would give them a social stigma regardless how true it might be.

Lawrence stated it correctly that criminals don't and will never follow the law. If they're bent on committing a crime they will do it any way possible regardless of the legal hurtles. What's sad is that in many counties across the nation prosecutors push for plea bargains rather than run to trial (either because of proof issues or keeping better win-to-loss ratios) allowing the convicted to receive less than optimal punishment and deterrent to committing crimes all together. Worse yet is that in many states jails and prisons are overcrowded and underfunded which push states to run early release campaigns and unfortunately since our penal system focuses more on retaining than rehabilitation many who leave their confinements often return.

YOU PEOPLE ARE MISSING THE POINT!! It does not matter what the Founding Fathers so clearly articulated they meant by the 2nd ammendment. It does not matter what the majority of the population of the country mandates. It does not matter that gun control is ineffective. All that MATTERS is what the Bleedibg Heart Liberals of the country want. They are the only ones whom feel they have the right to make decisions for YOU! What don't you understand about that?

of course,upbringing and environmental factors greatly influence the alarming homicide rate in this country.But so does the access to handguns.

The Brits seem to forget why they were never allowed to own guns. Mostly had to do with controlling the serfs & the ancient system of property ownership & the monarchy. Love the system of gov't. Think it might be useful in the USA. But,as we are now, I don't want to be deprived of my right to protect myself from criminals or from an out of control gov't. Take away the guns, & it is much easier to create a Zimbabwe style dictatorship. Individual ownership does impose 2nd thoughts on all those bad guys.

One man can control a hundred people with a gun, but if just ten of those one hundred people had a gun... well you get the picture.

Just another thought: you can take away guns from the good guys, but the bad guys would still find a way to possess them (black market, smuggling, etc) pretty much making us good guys sitting ducks!

Lawrence: remember remember the 5th of november the gun powder treason and plot, I see there no reason the gun power treason should ever be forgot. Ring any bells?? People shouldnt be afraid of there government, governments should be afraid of there people. Guy Fox said it and by the way I disagree with you on the assault wepons thing I think there are some people that shouldnt own them or any other gun for that matter as they are more likely to shoot themselves than anything but I do own an MP5SD6 and I train on it 3 times a week more if I can get away with it and I feel pretty safe in my home knowing I can use it. I am ofcourse a member of the military and am very careful and very well trained though I do keep up with such things on my own point is its a freedom gun ownership and with every freedom must come responsibility you want to own a gun great you must qualify with it learn deadly force rules keep it secure and above all have commen sence.

Hi ,

Thanks for posting new updates on the - Gun Control Laws .
I 've also read the comments , and i am agree with the - Jim , comments .
Thanks.

With best wishes ,

Lorra .