Gun Control

[MarkDel]

Wrong. The second amendment is about instant militias and is irrelevant today. There are no legitimate reasons for priavte persons to have guns. The only three I kcan think of are:

1.) Hunting. Going out and living your fantasy of Tarzan or Squanto by killing deer with laser guided assault weaponry. Ooh, how sportsmanlike in touch with nature!

2.) Engaging in crime or other violence.

3.) Defense against category 2.

In short, it is a very good idea to ban all personal firearms for the benefit and security of all. However, firearms and munitions should and must be readily available to security and military forces.

This is one of my "lefty" issues, and one of the most passionate of my positions that do not fit within my party.

WOW...you really, really shocked me with this answer. When the government comes around to take away my guns...well...I wouldn't wanna be the first ATF schmuck to come through my door.

[MarkDel]

I think there is a lot of unfounded mass hysteria surrounding the gun issue. No one's guns are going to be taken away. I agree completely, MarkDel, if someone was coming to take my guns away, I'd stand and fight with all the strength I could muster. But there is no way in hell that is going to happen in America. I am highly suspicious of the "domino theory" in general (the idea that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, the "slippery slope", etc.). I think that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things that has no bearing in reality.

I don't see any reason why a gun should be legal if it has no legitimate hunting, sporting, or self-defense purpose. If it does, it should absolutely be legal, but if it doesn't, it shouldn't. People often mention the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but there are a lot of weapons that 99.9% of us would agree aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment...it's perfectly Constiututional to ban nuclear weapons, Sherman tanks, hand grenades, etc. So there is obviously not an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms, since almost everyone would agree that nuclear bombs should not be legal for the average citizen to own. It's just a matter of where you draw the line, there clearly is no absolute right.

Nym90,

They came for people's guns in England not all that long ago. And you may feel my overall point is simplistic, but imagine a Democratic President from a major Northeastern City who has strong support in Congress...say Charles Schumer, who is one of the biggest enemies of the 2nd Amendment. If you don't think that the extreme left of the Democratic Party wouldn't OUTLAW all handguns and order their confiscation, then you haven't been listening to them very well over the years. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO GET A GUN PERMIT IN NEW YORK CITY OR WASHINGTON, DC??? You cannot get one at all without showing cause to a local magistrate that you need it specifically because you carry large sums of money, and the vast majority of all permit applications are turned down for unknown reasons. If these people had their way, all handguns would be BANNED...listen to them...take them at their word!

[MarkDel]

If we were going to ban guns, we probably should have done it a long time ago. Trying to do it nowadays just -- wouldn't work. Period, and I wouldn't blame people for putting up a fight.

Nation,

Self defense goes hand in hand with the American culture...which is a culture of personal responsibility first and foremost.

[MarkDel]

Indeed, but a lot of Americans aren't responsible, hah.

But seriously, yeah I get what you're saying. The only weapons I'd want banned are the assault-type rifles, etc. Absolutely no need for those.

Nation,

I tend to agree. There is no need for anyone to have an M-16, though they are fun as all hell to shoot!!!

[MarkDel]

On a side note, even if guns are banned for non-government use, criminals are always going to be able to find them. By making them illegal, crime will grow, because criminals will know that homes do not have weapons for defense. This is similar to drugs, where if we illegalize marijuana, we're making people break the law more.

Yes PERHAPS, but counter that by all the little children who wont accidentally shoot their siblings with daddy's gun if guns were banned completely. And thats a load of crap about criminals going into homes because they think their are unarmed.

Take new zealand and australia as examples. not only are guns prohibitively hard to get their (not banned mind you) but the police themselves are unarmed, yet as a percentage of population there is much less gun violence.

Clearly, Guns are not the solution to the problem, guns are the problem.

Raggage,

Actually there is all sorts of empirical data that indirectly supports the contention that home invasions occur less in areas where gun control is the weakest and gun ownership is the highest. Also, there is an even greater correlation to overall crime rates going down when concealed carry laws are expanded, as happened in Texas over the last two decades. All I know is that I'd rather have a gun and not need it, then not have a gun when I need one.