American Morning
Mad as Hell: Gun owners up in arms
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/08/18/obama.protest.rifle/art.obama.gun.pool.jpg caption="A man is shown legally carrying a rifle at a protest against President Obama in Phoenix, Arizona in August."]
December 15, 1791 – On that day the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, sowing the seeds for an ongoing and still raging debate about the right to be free to bear arms vs. the right to be free of violence.
Here’s the exact wording:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
We went to western Pennsylvania, where hunting is popular, and to Baltimore, Maryland, where it isn’t, to understand better the cultural gap that divides the two sides.
Baltimore, Maryland – So far this year more than 300 people have been shot. Just last week six people died from gunfire. Baltimore is one of more than 450 small and large cities that have joined New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in an effort to keep guns away from criminals.
Baltimore also has instituted “Safe Streets,” a program that aims to reduce shootings by putting community members onto the streets at night to mediate disputes that could lead to violence.
Dante Barksdale is one of those community members. An ex-con, Barksdale says “Safe Streets” gets at the heart of gun violence. “I don’t know about people loving guns,” he said, “but I know about people using guns to protect themselves or protect their image. … And this is why usually people use guns to resolve conflict. It’s because they feel like, you know, someone is stepping on their macho image [but] … being macho, being the biggest man with the biggest gun, the man who has all these people fearing him, this is not being a man. This is ignorance.”
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania – The gun owners we spoke with here, just east of Pittsburgh, see their freedom threatened by efforts to control gun possession. They were not uniformly against all gun control, but expressed concerns that new legislation could escalate into an outright ban.
CNN's Carol Costello visited retiree Irwin Polansky, who hunts around the small town of Jeanette. She asked him if owning a gun is a God-given right. “Yes,” Polansky said. He needs a gun “to protect myself from bad guys. … or an animal.” Polansky added that “they’ve got enough laws on the books right now. If they would only enforce them to go after criminals. … But why come after us? We didn’t do nothing wrong.”
We found several hunters early one morning waiting quietly with shotguns for geese to fly over Twin Lakes in Latrobe, PA. After downing several birds, hunter George Smithula told us that “you have to be born in the environment to really appreciate guns.” As for assault weapons, Smithula told us: “I’m not too keen on [them], but everything else I see no problem with.” Why does he think some gun advocates oppose all forms of gun control? “Because if you take the assault weapons away … what’ll be next? The handguns? Who knows?”
“If I lived in a place like [Baltimore],” said fellow geese hunter Dan Weyandt, “I’d like to have a gun for protection because there’ so much going on. What are you going to do if somebody comes in and comes after your family?”
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
Jon,
Actually the NRA has on several occasions over the years.... agreed to accept heavier fines and more strict penalties for crimes committed with guns....
Each individual owns and is completely responsible for their own life, their choices and actions. The individual right to life and self defense predate the constitution by many thousands of years.
Learn about these things and take control of your own life. You don't have any right to control the lives of others, only to defend yourself against aggression.
Its sad to see all these screams of racism and hate groups.
I dont care if you are Republican or Democrat, Black or white, support Obama or hate him. I support YOUR right to bear arms. If you see people at a rally and you dont like their views and feel intimidated because they wear guns, guess what, you have that right to. This is what makes the USA the greatest country in the world.
Martin Luther King along with Malcom X was for Blacks and minority groups arming themselves for protection. What happened in the last 30 years? Your community leaders have disarmed you and told you that guns are evil instead of showing you how to protect your own because that it is your right as a American.
Quite simply, guns don't kill people...people kill people. And that is exactly what the problem is.
Good comment, Marc. The guy shooting at the waterfowl while they were on the pond appeared a moron and exhibited poor shooting and sportsmanship skills. Some peeps don't need to be handling firearms at ALL.
Not long ago, things started changing in America with how our country is run. We are so far removed from the original intent of what lawmakers who first ratified the Constitution intended that it is heartbreaking. It may have started with lobbying. What was once a good thing, has turned into total disrespect for the average American. Lobbying activities usually are in support of Corporate America and special interests groups with financial backing. The average American may have a vote, but they have NO VOICE!
As the purpose of lawmaking changed ( to support capitalists and special interests groups), our legislators begin to act more and more incompetent. They could care less about the state of our economy, healthcare, or crime.
How do you competently, and in the best interest of a safe and healthy country, not enact sensible gun control measures. Do they even bother to look at the crime statistics. Why justification can reasonable, competent legislators ever have for allowing individuals to not only own, but carry assault weapons around, concealed or unconcealed. Our legislators have proven without a doubt they they lost their collective intellectual capacity long ago.
What we have been seeing displayed by these so called representatives is an outright disgrace to American democracy and to the Constitution specifically.
How do we begin a revolt against all the insanity without financial backing and without professional consultants to strategize? What will it take for this country to regain a sense of real purpose and for us to have real representation? What we have in Congress is certainly not representative of what the legislature is supposed to look like.
My heart grieves for my country and I will not find peace or solace until we can again have serious leadership in Washington who will take stock of where we are headed and try to turn this chaos around.
Let's give the American populace their voice back before it is too late!!!
Just a quick comment for those of you on here that don't understand and keep mentioning AK-47's and handguns being "bad", there are a lot of us common people that like to just collect guns and go out to the country on the weekends and just shoot our guns at targets. As long as we're responsible LEGAL gun owners there should not even be an issue.
Number One; The Second Amendment DOES NOT give any "right" what-so-ever! It does state "the right", therefore, pre-existing the drafting of the amendment.
Number Two; This one's for Carol!!! The amendment DOES NOT say "musket", it does say "arms" – any and all ARMS. If you want to own a bazooka, why not? If you use it wrongly – you should suffer the maximum penalty for that wrong use.
Number Three; A gun is no different than a hammer. Both can be used of evil purpose – but it takes a person to use it so.
Once again – I offer a $1000 bounty, payable in cash, to anyone who can show me any incident, through out the history of the gun, where any gun has harmed any human being – willfully and with malice.
Guns can't think – guns have no will – guns are incapable of malice!
Y'see...this is why we call them "wingnuts." Obama isn't talking about expanding our gun control laws. Congress isn't talking about expanding our gun control laws. Nobody is talking about expanding gun control laws except the people that are against it...and they're foaming at the mouth, throwing a tantrum and screaming about someone taking their guns away. Who? Who's coming to take their guns away? Nobody, of course. But they've been whipped into a frenzy by whomever it is that's currently telling them what to think...Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Savage, or some blogger...these right wing "commentators" don't have anything to offer except these MADE UP BOOGYMEN of "evil liberals." What I don't get is why the fools that listen to those fearmongers are so eager to believe all their worst fears. They seem to WANT Obama to come and take their guns away, just so they can complain about it.
I think the focus on laws that make it difficult to possess and carry firearms is exhausting. Law makers need to focus more on the consequences of committing crimes with illegal or unlicensed firearms & theft of firearms. Taking guns away from responsible and rational citizens is far from the answer. I have the right to protect myself and my family at any cost. It's easier to find guns illegally than to own a gun legally.
The problem with the majority of responders here who are in favor of the 2nd amendment is that they forget common sense. They are easily whipped up by the NRA, the gun companies, and other conservative groups into thinking that Washington is coming for their guns. So predictably they become all up in arms (so to speak) and rush out to stock up before they imagine their guns will become illegal. I read one gun owner who said that the laws should be more stricter with heaver fines. The thing that has kept the government from imposing heavier fines has been.... the NRA.
Realize this the NRA does not really speak for their members as that organization says, but instead speaks mainly for the gun industry who would stand to loose billions if the laws became more stricter. Also, if everyone employed common sense there would be no issues as the gun owners would realize that not all weapons would be affected, gun banners would not lump everything into one pile, and it would be easier to prosecute criminals for gun crimes.
Again, for those of you fighting for the 2nd amendment, think about it: are you really fighting for your right or are you in reality and unknowingly fighting for the big corporations who have been controlling this argument for ages to keep their profits rolling in from the dupes?
saftgek September 22nd, 2009 8:49 am ET
1) The key phrase in the 2nd Amendment is “well-regulated Militia.” An individual filling lockers and rooms with weapons is in no way connected with a “well-regulated Militia.” Rather, have a standing National Guard and Army Reserve would certainly better qualify as a “well-regulated Militia.”
WRONG – National Guard answers to Federal Gov. Well-Regulated militia applies to private citizens to protect against a tyranous gov.
4) Certainly, no reasonable and rational person would object to having all firearms registered. This is a simple matter of enabling law enforcement personnel to expedite investigations involving firearm crimes.
WRONG – I am a police officer and we dont need to know every TOM, DICK and HARRIET who owns a firearm. We only go after CRIMINALS, NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.... HELLO?
5) All gun crimes should be considered capital offenses against our country. As such, as a matter of preventing a 2nd offense AND as a deterrent, all gun crimes should result in death to the offender.
THIS IS SIMPLY RIDICULOUS!
Our Founding Fathers, in no way, intended the 2nd Amendment to be a rampant and unteathered ownership of firearms. The extremists’ argument to the contrary is just plain wrong and silly.
THIS PERSON OBVISOULY HAS NOT THOUGHT THIS OUT
Your comparison is not appropriate. The Baltimore problem is the criminals who will always have guns. Law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves. Legally owning a gun is an equalizer and the only threat is to the criminals. Police show up after crimes are committed. Crimes are not committed with legal guns!
I always wonder where gun rights activists think that criminals get their guns. They get them because someone robbed your house or broke into your car and sold it on the street.
A great family friend of mine and form gun rights activist changed his mind after receiving a call from the police explaining that a handgun registered to him had been used in a triple murder where two of the victims were children. The gun had been stolen from his house a few months earlier.
He still owns guns today but only shotguns and rifles. He is still an avid hunter and figures he can protect his family and home just fine with a 12 gauge shotgun.
Since Barak Obama has only been in office for 8 months the media portrayal of all this anger seems very strange. From gun owners to health care reform opponents the louder one yells the more attention one gets. All this so called anger seems out of place considering that in most of these hot button issues nothing has changed, no permanent laws written and no hard decisions made. I think any true journalist would have to take a step back and determine the real source of this anger, how large it really is, and are the issues being driven by politics and philosophy. The one thing I would add personally is that in any "Fair and Balanced" debate the one area that is sacred is complete truth and honesty, which seems not to always be the case(75000 at a recent protest suddenly became 2.5 million). It also seems that much of the anger is very disrespectful of the office of the Presidency and is being fueled by the extreme media.
I have read most of the comments everyone has posted and I see good points on both sides. But take away the politics, religion, history, race, environment, etc. and what it boils down to is parents' responsibility to teach their children to respect others and respect life. It can take generations. There is no simple short-term solution to violence, racism, or any social problem that plagues our society; only a simple long-term solution.
By the way, I just became the first person in 3 generations of my family (probably more) to own a handgun. As much as I respect and am grateful for what our police do for our community I must take responsibility for protecting my own family.
Although there are other methods, that's the one I choose. A local family decided golf clubs were sufficient, and used those to beat a burglar to death; a burglar whose parents’ failed to teach him respect for others.
The ideal of taking away constitutional rights started it.
Then the fear of Obama's anti-gun record caused a rush to own.
The part that is missing in all of it is very simple.
There are laws on the books that are severe when a gun is used in a crime. All states have them, yet the real problem resides with using these laws.
As an example, the 1935 firearms act makes it a federal crime, mandatory sentencing, etc.
There is no difference between protecting yourself against a wild animal than protecting yourself from a crook.
Just as with a wild animal, some people have a similar lack of intelligence, requiring similar force.
And yes, the track record of gun control in history proves several things. A dramatic rise in crimes and out of control governments.
Don't take my word for these things, look it up, Germany and Hitler, UK and home invasion, there is a long list...
Then too, a gun doesn't kill, the person holding it does.
A basic problem is the ease of obtaining an illegal gun in any large city. Just go down on the corner with cash.
I ask at this point why aren't fellons who are caught with guns charged for that crime?
Why aren't all gun crimes prosecuted under the 1935 firearms act?
Car jacking, home invasion, and other wonderful things tend to slow way down when the crook is looking down the barrel of a lawfully owned gun...things just seem to change, instantly.
I believe that owning a gun is covered under the second amendment for all the reasons listed above.
Just one last question.
Of those who oppose gun ownership/rights, how many of them have ever faced a situation where a gun was needed? I suspect all of them are very much too insulated from these types of situations and are not even aware of the difference between these societial differences.
Just be sure your car doesn't break down on the interstate that goes through these areas, or you could find yourself needing a gun and not having one...
How about instead of worrying about banning guns, we create more stiff penalties for criminals that use guns illegally; such as if they use a gun to kill a person and are found guilty in court then don't waste time feeding them in prison for however long and just do society a favor and execute them. I just don't understand how there is even a comparison of normal law abiding hunters and gun owners, to those thugs on urban streets using stolen guns. I just knew this would become a much bigger issue once OBAMA got in office which is why I'm mad as hell. Congratulations CNN you got your boy in the white house, now report away on all the ignorance, lying, and taking away from the common man that the democrats love to do!!!!!!!
I am a current gun owner and believe I and all Americans have a right o own. With that said, this country must do something to ensure only law abiding citizens are able to purchase guns. I am not opposed to lengthening the time and intensity of background checks to ensure the public's safety. I wonder if an investigation has been conducted on the type of guns used in "gang" disputes. Are the lawfully owned firearms or are the black market? If the majority are black market guns than I believe we have an answer to the problem of gun violence in urban America. Stop the trafficking of illegal firearms in and outside of the country.
If we are to be fair, why don't we also control the distribution of knives, bats, clubs, hands, automobiles, motorcycles, planes, cancer, aids, war, genocide, etc. The last time I checked the death toll from these other sources far surpassed that of firearms.
Why is it that people think making stiffer laws or more laws that people will stop killing people? Handguns, rifles, sticks, stones, kitchen knives, automobiles, hell, the list goes on. Are we to ban everything that has the potential to kill? People have been killing each other since the dawn of time in one fashion or another. As for the so called "Assault Weapons", it is a name given to a certain type of rifle by the fear mongers and the media. As someone already pointed out, a full auto rifle is banned unless you possess a federal firearms license. As an avid gun owner, the son of a Marine Drill Sergeant, and a Marine myself, I can tell you that there is no finer shooting rifle than the AR-15 (M16). To go to the range and enjoy an afternoon of target practice, or to go out hunting varmints, there is nothing more accurate or easier to shoot than the AR-15. But, because it is a weapon of choice by gang bangers, or others with mal intent, now it is banned from most cities to own, without silly modifications (See CA's list of approved mods in order to own). I agree, the violence in inner cities has to stop, but banning handguns or so called "Assault Rifles" will only remove these weapons from the hands of law abiding Americans. Do you want to stop the violence in the inner cities? For those that support stiffer laws, make a law that know gang members or gang affiliation will be considered terrorists activities/affiliation, and gang bangers will be prosecuted as terrorists. Have you watched any of the documentaries on cable? Some inner cities are a war zone, with KIDS and punks owning weapons of all types, aimlessly killing each other and innocent bystanders over a color of clothing. Removing the right to own ANY type of firearm (Full Auto excluded) is nothing more than a way to remove all firearms from the hands of Americans. No matter the use of the weapon, Sport, Hunting, Target practice, protection, collection, etc, we have the right to own weapons. The laws for gun ownership are already ridiculous, and adding more will do nothing to stem the tide of the violence in the inner cities. Has the handgun ban in NYC or DC stopped punk gang bangers from owning guns and killing each other? NO. Think people, THINK. Letting the government take your rights to bear arms away from you is just the beginning of gun control.
After reading the many comments above it was interesting to me. I saw that those who wanted gun control, and were willing to give up this freedom, also wanted to have government socialization. Government knows best and should take care of us in everything.
Those who wanted to protect their gun rights and freedoms wanted less government control. In many cases fearing government control over most areas of our lives.
I am a tax paying law abiding citizen. Those comments above about social progression scare me. Russia was socialized. The middle east much worse. Socialization is another word for suffocation.
What country brought us the telephone, the computer, and for that matter electricity? Did Tesla stay in Serbia to experiment with A/C power? What country has advanced most Medical Progress? It is here in the U.S. Free to choose and innovate.
Is it perfect? No. Is it worth fighting for and continually improving? Yes. I am proud to be called a Christian nut job. My belief in Jesus Christ is also protected by the constitution, which those who belive in socialization also want to take away.
Now you know why we are so polarized and there is no middle ground. Do gun control advocates want to give us more freedoms? Do those who believe in socialization want to give you more freedom? No. After they take your guns away they then want to take your money away and how does Obama put it? Oh Yeah. The redistribution of wealth. I did not see any talk show host on Sunday ask him what that means.
>>>The second amendment gives us the right to bear MUSKETS, not uzis. Think about it.<<<
Like the first amendment only protects speech that isn't electronically amplified or projected, and protects only that text written with a quill pen?
Oh, and the Constitution doesn't "give us" rights, it protects the rights that we already had before the Constitution even existed.
When I was in High school A friend told me of this bar where a guy would come in every night with 2 bags of hand guns 1 with hand guns for $50 and $100 your choice no question asked. These kind of guns we need to stop this. The police never stoped it or did not know about. It go to show how easy you can get a gun without going to a gun shop to buy one. It`s very scary this happens! People with these kind of guns kill others. Not gun owners that buy from a dealer kills others.
my daughter was murdered in a mall shooting along with 4 others in 2007 and many others were injured, my problem is illegal guns and how easy you can pick them up on the streets, when an adult can sell a minor a gun for $800, knowing he was going to use it to commit a crime and murder was almost a givin at the time of sale, gets caught after the fact, and only gets fined $500 dollars, in my opion is a joke, an insult to my daughter and my family, how many more have to die before something is done, 5 people are dead and he made a $300 dollar profit, I'm madder at the adult that sold the gun to a 17 year old, then the shooter himself which was killed, I think society as a whole failed this kid, the court system he stood in front of several times prior and did nothing, the counsellors, the school system and his so called friends and family, so many people and so many times he failed to get the help that was needed. I think these are all systems that need fixed, including stricter gun laws, I'm not against people owning guns, just the kind of people that own them, lets face it an AK47 is for one thing only, to hurt alot of people, even if your a gun collector you shouldn't be able to purchase certain weapons, especially better than law enforcement has.
Your article wasn't comparing apples to apples. Guns in inner-city crimes are generally illegal to begin with and the reasons for people relying on guns to resolve disputes are what we should be focusing on. Restrictive gun laws have never worked because anti-gun people focus on the guns and not on the people. The situation in Baltimore is not a gun issue but a social issue. Comparing that problem with people who live in rural areas who use guns for the sport of shooting are really different issues. Countries that have outlawed guns have had crime increase, not decrease. Washington DC outlawed guns and crime statistics did not go down. If people in Baltimore and similar places are helped to focus on their reasons for fighting, those people will not use guns for their arguments.
I live in Montana. I am a native. I have guns. I do not believe that anyone needs an automatic weapon. Period. The only things they are good for is killing people. Banning them would not lead to banning all weapons.
The population of the USA is a mixture of many cultures: European, African, Asian, Spanish, Arabic and a variety of others. In European Switzerland, EVERY Swiss adult male is REQUIRED to own a high powered .308 calibur assault rifle with 1000 rounds of ammunition. Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the entire world. The reason is that Switzerland has a stable, educated population with deep seated values. Could you imagine the African countries of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and Liberia having the same assault rifle requirement? Don't bother to answer because it is a fact that poor, uneducated countries always resort to the highest level of violence and atrocities. Ok, now look at the USA: an educated law abiding middle class population segment of all nationalities and races who own guns for collecting, hunting and most of all, protection. Now you merge in a large group of uneducated poor people, most who live primarily in dangerous urban ghetto neighborhoods. Gun crime is a much bigger problem in poor neighborhoods regardless of race and nationality. Will they surrender their weapons if the government requires it. Absolutely not. Will crime increase when many of the middle class becomes defenseless? Of course, like shooting ducks in a pond. Will the government care if the middle class is rape, robbed and butchered by these cross town thugs. Of course not, since the governement never apologizes and takes years for any changes to take place. Gun education is the only answer.
You realize that muskets have a larger caliber than an uzi dont you. Your argument makes no sense.
There are ALOT of misconceptions and outright untruths being thrown around in many of these post.
First – Assault Weapon is a term currently used to describe military styled weapons. Most of these use a smaller rifle round than typical hunting rifles and are NOT full automatic weapons.
Second – Ownership of 'machine guns' (Full automatic weapons) has be controlled since 1934 by the National Firearms Act (NFA). Since 1986 (FOPA) there was a ban of new 'machine guns' for civilian ownership. Existing registered machine gun are still legal for civilians pending an ATF tax and approval.
Third – The number of murders committed with LEGALLY owned and registered machine guns since 1934 is less than 5. Currently legal machine gun owners are very law abiding persons. A registered machine gun currently (do to the 1986 FOPA) sell for $5000 to more than $30,000 each. To legally own the item you must submit a form to the ATF with finger prints and the taxes. Once the ATF does a background check if eligible you will receive the paperwork approving the purchase in a few months. Being convicted of a felony will make a person ineligible to own NFA items for life.
Fourth – The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the police have no obligation to protect you. Depending on the police for your personal protection is foolish. Warren v. District of Columbia and Castle Rock v. Gonzales both show what happens.
Fifth – The old notation that the Second Amendment (2A) only protects muskets is false. There have been several Supreme Court rules stating the 2A at least protects civilian ownership for current military infantry weapons. Even back when the 2A was written there was civilian ownership of cannons and warships, the WMD of the day.
Sixth – The Gun Show Loophole is nothing more than a private sale of property. Most gun show firearm purchases are from federally licensed dealers with all forms and back ground checks preformed. 'Closing' the gun show loophole would be equal to requiring all auto sales to go through auto dealers.
Why take from law abiding and responsible citizens???
(Or make it harder for them to buy guns for that matter?)
Two particular words come to my mind when speaking about gun control in America, RESPONSIBILITY and LEGALITY. When anti-gunners speak out about putting more and more bans on guns, they have to realized that most gun crimes in which they are referring to probably do not occur with a legally owned gun or the gun is not legally owned by the person who committed the crime. I would be willing to bet that this is the case in Mr. Barksdale's (Safe Streets) case in Baltimore as well many other cities across the nation. What a lot of anti-gunners do not seem to realize is the reality of the effiectiveness of gun control measures. These measures only make it TOUGHER FOR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS to own and buy guns. They DO NOT HELP WHEN CONTROLLING CRIMINALS WHICH COMMIT THE CRIMES that Mr. Barksdales speaks of. Criminals ALWAYS HAVEand ALWAYS WILL find a way to obtain guns if they want them bad enough. Why would a person who is thinking about committing a crime worry if their gun is legally owned or not? Just look at some of the European countries in which gun ownership is banned altogether (they still have gun crimes and no gun at all is legal to own in those nations). The majority of criminals have a record that would not allow them to buy a gun from a gun shop if they wanted one and they surely could not obtain concealed weapons permit (or any other special permit).
Responsibility plays a significant role in gun accidents and other crazy gun stories that are broadcast on the news. There is no acceptable reason for the stories of a kid accidentally shooting another kid or some psycho person shooting people because he had a bad family life as a kid. These stories are usually a matter of a gun owner not being responsible about the storage of their gun or teaching their children or friend about gun safety and responsibility.
The proper gun control measures to have safe streets and gun ownership in conjunction with one another are already in current law. The problem lies in the intentions of the people who use the guns and those who teach (or should teach) about gun safety and responsibility. Americans need to teach their children and friends to respect a gun and teach them the consequences that can come about by the misuse of a gun and America would be a little bit safer place to live.
We must have 17 shotguns in our house. They are used both for duck hunting and for sporting clays shooting, which is a bit like shooting at dishes thrown up in the air. We would never take one to a Town Hall meeting or carry it on the street, nor, would we use one to settle an argument. We would use them to defend our house should the need arise, though I doubt it will. None of them would serve us much good as a modern weapon against a military unit, so as a militia weapon they wouldn't be very useful.
Dante Barksdale from Baltimore is absolutely correct about discouraging people from carrying handguns. They are too easy to pull out and use, and far too many young people are being killed or wounded by them for the stupidest reasons. As for that man you spoke with in Pennsylvania, he can't shoot straight. Instead of bringing it down cleanly, he just crippled that poor goose. To make matters worse, he then shot it twice while it was struggling in the water. It will be so full of shot it will not be edible. You found yourself a duffer, not a hunter.
I do not own any guns but did hunt deer and duck with my dad many years ago. My gun safety instructor taught me that shooting at water or a hard surface was unsafe since bullets or pellets ricochet off the surface and then travel quite a distance. So if you want to hunt geese in Pennsylvania, that's fine. Just exercise some common sense. Rather than shooting across the water at a downed goose, send the dog after it. Or take a canoe out on the water, get the bird, and if it is still living, break its neck. I've had to do that myself and it is safer than shooting at the water.
19years ago my good friend was murdered by serial killer thomas dillan While he was bow hunting for deer ,He is in prison now but what if my friend would have had a firearm with him ,I think it would have been a different ending .But my friend was following the law and lost his life that day .Tougher laws needed for crimes with guns ,law abiding gun owners should be left alone . LEAVE OUR GUNS ALONE worry more about getting people jobs so they can live normal lives. you cant fix everything.
I just saw the report this morning on your broadcast. Your reporter supposedly chose two opposing sides to the arguments regarding firearms. The two people chosen for the interview, I believe, were not the best subjects to interview in an attempt to provide an unbiased report on gun control. I think that it was wonderful that the young man in Baltimore is working hard to keep guns off the streets. And he was right that guns on the streets of cities are frequently used to solve interpersonal conflicts, especially amongst the poor and uneducated. I think that most intelligent people will agree that guns should not be used to resolve interpersonal conflicts. However, the older gentleman that was interviewed, I believe, was chosen because he comes off as an extreme gun control advocate. I think the interview was designed to make him look stupid and ignorant and also to make anybody else that supports the right to possess firearms to be stupid and ignorant as well. Now I can't speak for everybody else who owns a gun, but I believe that with proper training and education a person does have a right to own firearms. It all boils down to just that – training and education. Obama and the Democrats are not going to take away our rights to bear arms. It just won't happen. They don't want to create a situation where an uprising would occur. And it would. Guns exist, we own them and there is nothing that can be done about that. Before anybody can buy one, we need strong background checks and requirements on training and education before the final sale occurs. This is the best course of action for gun control. Banning guns will not be an answer. And anybody caught selling firearms illegally should be arrested. Thank you for the time to sound off on this subject.
Once again the media has confused legal gun ownership with criminal abuse of guns. In 30+ years of treating maxillofacial trauma, I don't recall a single incident of a person being shot with a legally obtained handgun. Criminals – by definition , do not obey the laws. Law abiding gun owners are generally speaking,cautious and concerned about gun rights and legislation. I empathize with the inner city scourge of handgun violence, but that problem will not be solved by additional legislation– only personal responsibility and a respect for the rule of law will solve this issue. That problem is much more deeply rooted in the breakdown of he social fabric of our society.
Three Questions :
1. How can anyone even think that tougher laws would solve anything ? Isn't there already a law against armed robbery ? isn't there already a law against murder ? Isn't there already a law against kidnapping ? Yet it happens every single day. Please- stop being so naive as to think that tougher laws solve anything. We alreday have over crowded prisons that are bursting at the seams- WHICH- by the way- expend $35,000 epr year of YOUR money on every single man, woman and child that live in these prisons . YOU are paying for it BIG time.
2. If guns are not the real issue, then PLEASE tell me why Canada and Great Britain have crime rates that are a tiny fraction of ours ? Can Wayne Lapierre – Mr paid off gun lobbyist explain this ?
3. If not for the HUGE gun industry money, can anyone explain why the majority of this electorate is opposed to guns yet our political "representatives" never vote with the pople they supposedly represent when it comes to gun issues ? Sorry for asking such an easy question. You all know the answer.
You could run a mini series on this issue. The bottom line is It is better to have it and never need it than to need it and not have it.
Perhaps it would be best to step back from this and cool down a bit. I suggest a one year moratorium (sp) on ALL commercial gun sales in the US. Individuals could transfer or sell their weapons under existing laws, but Federal Firearms License holders could not sell or transfer handguns or "assault weapons" for one year.
This would not infringe on any 2 Amendment right to bear arms, but it would reduce the number of weapons being sold and cool this issue down a notch.
Guns are a lightning rod for emotions that divert us from the real issues. The percieved lack of opportunity coupled with a desire to exercise control of others.
Where affordable ( from US to Afganastan)these groups will use guns. Where guns aren't as available( parts of Africa), they use machetes and promote wholesale amputations. Where machetes aren't as available, clubs,spears and systemic rapes are used as wepons.
Lets fix what is wrong in society and quit arguing about the method people chose to promote their bad behavior.
In the US, for the last 3 yrs, long guns ( including all types of asault wepons) caused 2.7%-3% of the homicides. This is FAR below the "Other" catagory which includes clubs, and strangulation by rope.
Ban assult wepons, they will use shotguns, ban shotguns, they will use pistols, ban pistols, they will use knives, ban knives, they will use baseball bats, ban bats they will use rocks....................
Lets fix our people, privide education,provide jobs & incentive to work these jobs. Not incentive to stay home and complain bemoan the problem of guns..............................
What people never seem to get through their thick skulls is that gun control laws never affect gun crime. Does anybody doubt that guns are available anywhere in the world for those who don't concern themselves with little details like laws? The most draconian gun laws in the world do not prevent crime.
We have prohibited drugs my entire life. Want to buy a joint? Ask a junior high student where he gets his. Why would anybody think gun laws will be any more effective?
Gun laws only reduce the ability of everyone else to defend themselves. Why penalize me? I am not and never was part of the gun crime problem. I just want an equalizer.
Crime rates are the highest in urban areas with the most extreme gun bans, i.e. Chicago, Washington DC. Furthermore, cities like Baltimore have violence on the streets not because of guns, but because of the black market of drugs where violence and skulduggery are the status quo. End this underground criminal market in America and violence will seriously decline in all areas. Look back to the prohibition laws against alcohol, these laws facilitated the organized crime of America in the 1920's.
Firearms allow all individuals to defend their life, liberty and property. Perhaps most important, albeit taboo in the mainstream, is the fact that no country has been overthrown, internally or otherwise, by an overtly tyrannical government when that citizenry has been well armed. Firearms are an assurance of freedom
Given the unconstitutional nature of this administration and the ones previous, We The People are aware that firearms in this era, as in all eras, must be embraced to ensure that draconian leaders do not impose the will of the Federal Government on the People of the United States.
Obama has renewed the Patriot Act, continues Military Commissions, John Warner Defense Authorization Act, etc, etc. HR 645 is blatantly fascistic, and that coupled with the unconstitutional banker bailouts and a severely receding economy, as an individual who loves freedom I have no choice but to take care of myself.
Obama's Administration is the anti-gun administration par excellence. Eric Holder has argued in the Supreme Court for a complete gun ban nation wide a la Washington DC or Chicago. Raum Emmanuel has stated he wants a no fly= no gun buy list which on its face is unconstitutional. Due process is not served by lists. Obama supports the CIFTA treaty which is similar to the gun bans of our most violent cities. Obama and Holder created legislation that will take away the gun rights of American Citizens. This will not be tolerated. Non Violence is the answer, but individuals have the right to defend themselves. Ghandi supported gun rights.To find all the draconian legislation of the Obama Administration go to GUNOWNERS.ORG or INFOWARS.COM.
CNN is a hollow shell of a news station .
I am both a retired military officer and a retired police officer. I admit that what the democrats now stand for causes me concern on so many levels. Remember what Nancy Pelosi's plans are for guns....take them all. Remember Ted Kennedy's statement about them not having very much luck with getting the guns "but we can get the bullets and when we get the bullets we get the guns". A under educated, dependent on government for everything, non christian and disarmed population sure would help them achieve what seems to be the direction of their overall agenda.
""" September 22nd, 2009 8:56 am ET
QUESTION: Who among you is naive enough to believe that IF all guns, or all pistols, or all assault rifles were banned, that the criminals owning them would simply march into their local police station and hand them over?""""
Guns should never be banned, period. If that happens, then the criminals just have the guns, and since criminals don't follow the law to begin with....
The NRA and the gun makers tell these clowns that Obama is coming to take your guns, and these clowns run out and buy every gun and bullets they can find. Nice profit for the NRA and the gun makers. Stop being fools, nobody is going to take your guns.
Did all the 15-year-old Baltimore gangbangers obtain and use their firearms legally? Of course not. So is present gun law really insufficient?
The source of the criminal violence featured in this story is not guns, but rather the illicit drug trade.
So, shouldn't we address that actual cause of this violence instead of pretending that outlawing guns would eliminate their use by criminals, who by definition do not obey the law?
Forcing the drug trade underground has produced this extremely competitive, unregulated, and violent market for drugs.
Instead of banning guns, let's un-ban illicit drugs. Create the same sort of regulated market for drugs that we have for alcohol and tobacco and see if we don't see the level of violence decrease to a level similar to those markets.
Good morning everyone.
I've been hunting all my life and never once felt the need to have a hand gun until 9/11. My reason then was I felt the chaos that would ensue after it. That chaos was a government that went bad, Bush administration. When a government goes beyond the rights that a free people are entitled too, then it is fear that will drive more to protect themselves.
With that said; I have no fear anymore. I need no guns to protect me or my family. But, I am unique. Others however are still in their state of fear.
As a country our laws are what gets subverted by scrupulous people. If laws were enforced we would not be in this situation. And if the hard core drugs that are permeating this country would be eradicated we would live in a safer society.
Much work is to be done in the name of Justice.
Good Morning,
I am responding to your request for input on the gun control discussion.
Your discussion this morning is a bit misleading, and while I personally have no problem with someone having the ability to protect them self and their family and property, I do have a problem with people, such as the intra-city gangs having guns and killing each other.
But regardless how many more laws are passed, the problems in the intra-city will not change – the gangs will find guns if they want them. The "mob" has proved that for decades.
But, neither of the sides discussed, legal or illegal access to guns address the proper focus point, and that is – Americans DO have the right to have guns for what ever reason. And, until the constitution is changed they will continue to possess that right.
Further, those people that have the right and that have obtained licenses in their respective state DO NOT create the same problems that intra-city gangs do with their guns.
Intra-city poor kids that get caught up in gangs need HELP and not the type that we have provided over the years, We throw money at a problem through a filter, that filter is the corrupt group of people in all of our big cities who use the funds for personal and re-elect purposes, negating the objective of resolving the problem. Very few dollars get to the targeted objective.
I really enjoy your report on this issue, and others, but the focus should be on the PROBLEM and some resolution to the problem, not focus on the second amendment.
Warm Regards,
Chuck Hood
The Woodlands, TX
The Goverment is not going to take your guns.Fox must be spewing there lies to get these gun owners all upset I've not heard our goverment talking about taking our guns.I'm a gun owner and a christian I don't worry about someone coming to get me trust in God if you are afraid.don't listen to these sound bytes about these hot topics.Wake-Up this is what the Republican party is good at spreading fear, they done it for 8 years.Do we ever learn?And as for the news media they like to keep things all stirred up too.I watch all kinds of news to get the facts but Fox is one sided and I think you all know what side they are on and they lie so much it's kind of sickening to watch them.People how would they gather all these guns? thats like gathering all the illegal imigrants that are in this country and you don't see that happening.We need to start worrying about our Health care premiums going out of sight work on one issue at a time.
Paul the officer wrote, "Our country was founded through the RIght to Keep and Bare Arms. There is no altering the 2nd Amendment. It is guaranteed and can never be changed."
Altho I agree that short sleeve shirts should be allowed in public ('bare arms'), I strongly disagree to Paul's 'blanket statement.' The 'right to bear arms' was essential in evolutionary days, and a musket is not a high powered automatic. When times change, laws (and constitutional rights) can be modified to meet the times.
But I agree with Paul on a second issue. He wrote, "The only thing I have ever seen make ANY difference, no matter how, small is to make penalties for crimes MUCH STIFFER."
Agreed. Why should a shooter's penalty hinge on the outcome of the victim? I propose that the mere act of shooting someone should mandate a penalty of from twenty years to life. Mandatory. The fact that they may survive should not diminish the sentence.
Both limiting which guns are allowed (absolutely NO assault weapons, and a limit on clip size and firing rate), and SEVERE penalties for the act of firing upon would improve gun safety, and should be acceptable to both sides.
I own over twenty guns. I got my first gun for my seventh birthday, a little 410 shotgun. I will be 39 next month and I have never shot anyone with my guns. I guess you could say I am not a criminal, and I obey the laws. If guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns. I believe in my right to own guns, and I believe in my right to vote. "Pro gun voter"
" September 22nd, 2009 8:53 am ET
Too many in this country think every problem should be solved with the pull of a trigger. We have the highest gun-death rate of any civilized nation in the world. Wake up, people, and stop the insanity. Stop shooting each other!"
We also have the most gun control. Now look at the stats with the countries with the least gun control.
Argue all you want. The biggest problem with firearms today are the people that use/own them. For "home protection" I would prefer a .45 pistol & a sawed off shotgun. However, it would be illegal for me to have the sawed off shotgun but legal if I had an AK47. WE the people have perverted the right to own a firearm. I listen to those "hunters?" that argue an AR15, AK47, etc., are hunting rifles. Guess I am just "old fashioned" to think that hunting "was" a sport. Explain to me the sport when if you miss with the first shot you can follow up with 20-40, or 60 rounds? For those that argue about "carrying" a firearm for personal protection on a daily basis. If "god forbid" that situation occurs to you really think that you would be calm enough to shoot straight, let alone be prepared to kill another human being?
I don't see guns as the problem. Violent people yes!Guns may make it easy to harm others. But I know of a fellow killed his father with a brick. Shoot me.
CNN's story was superficial and contributed nothing to the discussion of an individual constitutional right. Advocates of upholding all the rights enumerated bill of rights believe in the rule of law (the constitution is the foundation of our legal system) AND individual rights. Assault and murder are crimes and illegal; whether the weapons used are knives, pipes, ropes are guns, the act is illegal and subject to society's justice. No weapon acts without a human hand and it is the human acting which is the source of the crime.
The right to keep and bear arms isn't frozen in time any more than the other rights are frozen in time (answer re. muskets). No free society can maintain a police force which can be everywhere at all times – so a free individual must be able to act to defend herself (and be held accountable for her response). A handgun can be a safer weapon in tight circumstances due to ballistics/travel distance. Moreover, the principle of the the to keep and bear arms includes the
understanding that disproportionate power between a government and the governed can lead to oppressive coercion (this was a circumstance which contributed to the revolution – British rule was restricting the rights of colonists to bear arms – check out the Boston massacre).
Somewhere in our national discourse there has be serious conversation which actually plumbs the depth of topics – rather than elementary cameo juxtapositions. CNN disappoints yet again.
The 2ad. Amendment serves a purpose for our Nation, to protect us from a government run a muck, invasion of foreign powers, and from individual and groups (terrorist and gangs) perpetrating criminal acts against our persons, community, and property. For the past 50 or 60 years the Nation has been divided by the false concept that gun control laws will protect the public, that the only purpose for having firearms is to hunt and that the average Joe citizen is incapable of using a firearm for his or another individuals defense, and that our Nation could never be subverted, or that our Nation will never be invaded. Many have also falsely asserted that the rural community should be treated differently than the urban or inter-city community leading to the removal of firearms from the citizens in some cites, an act that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional, and rightly so. In fact many cites experienced more gun violence, over the last several decades, where gun control laws have been enacted. While the misnomer, gun violence, belays the fact that an individual acted in violence, not the gun, in many cases the perpetrator that could not, or is unable to obtain a firearm simply turns to use another weapon to commit his crime. This has had a cause and affect of eroding the citizens right to keep and bear arms for their self defense, till the citizens are in fact disarmed both physical and mental, and vulnerable to criminal acts against themselves and their property. The problem is the lack of education, and the failure of discipline in our schools, and ultimately in our homes. Dante Barksdale and the Safe Streets program is a good ideal, but more education and attitude correction is needed. Children, yes I say children in age appropriate programs need to need to be taught in school how to properly handle firearms, and the proper and lawful uses of firearms, as well as the proper methods and ways to resolve their differences. Criminals, need to be locked up and stay locked up, especially the more violent and mentally disturbed. We must find ways to identify the the criminal and mentally disturbed and establish a check and balance upon their access to firearms and prevent them from obtaining such arms. The Nation, meaning every citizen no matter their political conviction on firearm, must make an effort to learn the proper ways to resolve their individual differences, and that firearms can be used properly for shooting sports and hunting in times of peace, and for their personal deference and the Nation in times of War. Education is the answer, not more gun control and disarming the law abiding citizen.
I correct myself in the 2nd to last paragraph i meant Urban not Rural areas.
I am not a fan of guns in any shape form a fahsion, and I could care less if they are owned by democrats or republicans-there is no need for them. This whole problem with out of control gun violence and gun control started the minute we put guns in the hands of a civilian and said "you have the right to defend yourself", "it's a God given right to defend yourself", "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition", and all the other things we have been told as "Americans" that make us feel better about bearing arms. For one thing everybody does not share the same perception as to when one needs to defend one's self. My biggest problem is the organizations that are banking off guns (e.g. NRA). I love how it is ok to organize the killing of animals for GAME (we call it hunting/providing my family with food (yeah right)-but let's not cut any corners here), but then as a country turn around and want to stone peole like Michael Vick for his dog fighting. I am of the belief whether you are fighting/hunting-killing animals is wrong-wrong-wrong!!! I say this for the dear hearts who are of the belief that it is up to them to control the population of any species.
Despite the US Supreme's Court affirmation that the Second Amendment pertains to the individual right to bear arms, President Obama, when a legislator, consistently voted for gun control measures. His White House Chief of Staff and his Attorney General have shown themselves to be against gun ownership of any sort. Incremental gun control legislation, the tactic of (their) choice is the "slippery slope" to full abrogation of the right to possess arms for sport, self-protection, or other legitimate purposes. The historic prohibition of handguns in Washington DC (as in some other major cities) evidently did little to keep it from becoming a hotbed of violent crime. Gun owners need to be aware and active, not angry.
You are REQUIRED in virtually every states to have a license to drive a car, fish, be a tradesman, open a business, sell food, etc, etc, etc. For people stand up and say "registering or licensing guns is unfair' are hypocrites and just inflaming an unnecessary debate.
This is not about the gun owner – it is about the criminal and the way they get guns. Guns used in crimes are usually stolen from legitimate gun owners, so saying that legitimate gun owners are being unfairly singled out are also hypocrites.
And tell me how you would feel if your child was killed by a hit-and-run driver who is never caught because someone felt that making car owners put license plates on them was unfair.....
We ALL have to realize that we live together, and some of what we do MUST be in support of our community as a whole. We are not individuals who just bump into each other in the street. We all have an affect on each other, even people we will never meet. Tracking deadly weapons so we can better keep them out of the hands of criminals is NOT merely an inconvenience – it is a moral and social imperative, and those who cannot see that are, in my view, un-American in the strongest sense of the word.
GUN CONTROL SIMPLIFIED:
Having come from a family of military heros, police officers and lawyers, I am acutely aware of the need for guns in a society filled with violent, uncultured people. The most important thing is to obtain education and professional guidance BEFORE owning a gun. Owning a gun is more than a right, it is a 24 hour awareness and obligation. Following gun laws and keeping the gun in quick release safes are absolute requirements for protection and family safety.
Guns are not the problem, no more than a knife, bow and arrow, blowgun, car, swimming pool or electrical socket. ALL CAN KILL, but deaths can be avoided or eliminated with education, care and awareness. It was a terrible thing in March, 1981, when press secretary James Brady was shot in the head during an assasination attempt on the life of President Ronald Reagan, but what is just as big a shame is the misdirection and overeaction that James Brady's family followed with the forming of the malignant anti gun group, the Brady Center. If James Brady was killed by a crossbow, do you think that the Brady's would have formed the Brady Center to abolish archery? Yes, guns in the ghetto are a problem and most of the ghetto guns have been stolen or purchased illegally. Banning guns would only effect educated middle class people who own guns responsibly. Yes, criminals and crazy people own guns and if guns are not available, there are hundreds of other ways to kill people. Take guns away and gangs with fists, knives and clubs will rule the land. We as Americans will NEVER surrender our weapons to the government, even at the risk of becoming criminals. President Obama and the Democrat liberals would best be advised to leave things as they are, because their demise could easily be tied to control and such government stupidity. My advice would be for the current government to steer some of those ill-earmarked billions to build more gun ranges and provide sound gun ownership education. Do this and crime will drop radically.
Maryland is a concealed and carry state for those who can obtain a concealed pistol license; however, you used a convicted felon to oppose gun rights, a person who could never obtain a concealed pistol license. Your story does not give equal opportunity to legal gun owners and concealed pistol license holders of an urban area to express their opinion. Why not?????????
Gun control for who, the law abiding citizen or the thugs on the streets. A police officer cannot get to your house in time to protect you if someone has broken in. Thousands of dead non gun owners probably wish they had a gun right before they were brutally raped beaten and killed by thugs that dont care what the gun laws are. Get a grip people!
With all the passion and energy on the issue of gun control, and the effort to raise hundreds of million to support the right to bare arms, lets use the same effort toward finding a way to provide descent healthcare for all.
As a Johns Hopkins Student in Baltimore and a hunter and gun owner from my home state of Pennsylvania I feel I have a good perspective on this issue from both sides. Guns certainly need to be controlled in terms of who is allowed to purchase them and where certain types can be purchased, but banning firearms by type or specific kind is something wholly different.
I personally own three guns of my own and have inheritted three more from family. Of the three guns I own, two I worked hard for and bought myself, those two being a .270 hunting rifle and a .223 Semi-Automatic M4. Now most people say, why do you need the M4? And I respond by telling them I bought it for target shooting, which is the truth. I didn't necessarily Need it but target shooting is something I'm exceptionally good at and thoroughly enjoy.
As a former Junior Rifle Team member at my previous Gun Club, I had a lot of talent shooting and made it to the 7th Bar of the Sharpshooter Level for the NRA Junior Marksman Program. The club closed down due to money issues before I could get the few more bars I needed to recieve my Expert Marksman title. I purchased the M4 on my 18th birthday with money I worked hard for and I greatly enjoy taking it to the range on the occaisions that I have time to.
I grew up around guns, my father had them my whole life, and I had air-rifles and bb-guns as a kid; this was how I was taught to be responsible with firearms, respect the power of firearms, and I have never had an accident or had someone get hurt while shooting with me ever in my life.
The issue is really handguns in urban areas, this is something that I am not opposed to having tighter restrictions on, however, the problem with putting any gun control restrictions on any gun or type of gun, is the slippery slope it would likely put us down. If one gun gets banned, that will likely lead to another being banned, and another and so on and so forth. What we must remember is that our constitution allows for us to bear arms, and our constitution is the highest law in the land.
What needs to happen is have tighter restrictions on handguns in rural areas. Things like monthly purchasing limits, background checks, waiting periods, etc. And the punishments for having an illegally obtained firearm should be strictly enforced and enhanced as well as educating people on firearm safety and responsibility.
Though it gets said a lot, "Guns don't kill people, People kill people." And not to jump on that cliche-phrase bandwagon, but this is something we all must remember. The problem doesn't lie in the guns, it lies in the bad people who manage to get their hands on them.
Your story hit around the differences about guns and gun ownership, I was raised in North Miss..guns were for fun ,for hunting, and if need be to protect –my culture at that time would never think of this as a definition of manhood–drive bys- etc–fist fights were common may be even a knife fight - but rarely guns- my point is we have retooled our thinking about guns– big city folks see them one way and small town another way– add in scare tactics by protection groups- politics –gun makers and importers now you have lots of money in it too–personally there are guns I have no use for– but they are legal– all the laws we have made have not stopped this– culture has to retool again – we have a least two different attitudes about guns in general and way too much money in it//
If you will check on those using guns to rob, kill, or shoot others, they are getting these guns illegally. They are not following the laws to obtain guns. If all states would authorize conceal carry permits by citizens who receive permits lawfully, you would see those robbing and killing people decrease. The problem is, the police can not be with every person every minute of the day. If someone breaks into your house, that person can kill you before the police get there. This is true in most of these situations, if someone wants to harm or kill you. Do the reasearch, how many crimes are commited by law abiding citizens who own guns leagally, or have concelled carry permits. If you stop legal gun ownership, only the criminals or bad people will have guns. How about finding out how all the criminals are getting their guns.
QUESTION: Who among you is naive enough to believe that IF all guns, or all pistols, or all assault rifles were banned, that the criminals owning them would simply march into their local police station and hand them over?
I personally would never own a gun, but it seems to me the problem is not with the legal owners, but the illegal owners. We have laws on the books for gun control, we need to use them, not create new ones.
Most gun laws and regulation only affects law abiding citizens. The people who will abide by and follow the law are one who are restricted. The criminals do not and will not follow more restrictive laws. We know this because of the laws that have already restricted law abiding citizens from owning certain types of firearms.
This is not nor will we live in a Utopian world anytime soon so why restrict law abiding citizens from owning and carrying a firearm for self defense.
Yes we are worried because of past actions of democrat controlled congresses.
I am a gun owner from Pennsylvania and believe that it is our right to own firearms, but I'm concerned about the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress changing my rights. When this Administration and the Pelosi Congress pushed through a Stimulus bill without reading it, rammed through a Cap & Trade Bill and now wants to push through a Healthcare Reform Bill without serious debate. Doesn't the mainstream media have any clue why we Americans are outraged. I believe that the Obama Administration and the Congress will tackle gun ownership next, after they become successful with the other issues. They don't have to change the 2nd Amendment, but can pass laws to add an excise tax on the purchase of firearms and ammunition to be make it almost impossible to afford firearms. They can also pass legislation requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance for their use. I do not trust the Obama Administration, nor the Democratic Congress to be honest on this issue or any other.
I do not understand why we need AK47's or other semi-automatics on the street. Frankly, the NRA makes me feel LESS sake . We have too many instances where (school shootings) guns owned by people kill people while being an NRA member. Michael Carneal's family had lifetime memberships the NRA. His grandfather taught him how to shoot.
Chuck is right. The title should be racial as hell. I too think the anger is due to ignorance and racism and not guns per se. That being said, I am a middle of the road person on guns. The guy in the story is right in that people tend to use guns to solve conflict, expecially conflicts that could be solved in other ways. Again, its ignorance probably. I think guns should be legal, and the issue is really handguns. These are designed for killing people at close range like in conflicts. They are portable and easy to hide. Hunters really don't need them. If you kill a buck and it needs another shot to finish it off, you should shoot it again with your rifle or use a knife. You don't need a handgun. The laws should restrict the manufacturers from making them above a certain very low number. Place trade restrictions on foriegn handgun manufacturers.
Please stop saying there is no middle ground, as there is a majority out there, like myself, who are under represented. We are educators, small business owners, writers, designers, sales people, inventors, medical workers and more. We are the married, the parents and the single. We are the middle class people who live, work and think all over this country. And a lot of us don't own guns, don't want to and believe there should be some serious control. I know visual extremes sell the story, but they also dangerously sway the minds of the undecided in this very vulnerable time in America, on a subject that will have grave consequences for our future.
It is not about the guns. It is about attitudes and responsibility. The crime on the streets is about the bad attitudes of the people there. They think guns give them power and they have no respect for other people, so they use them for evil purposes. Its the people, not the tools. Change the attitudes and the problems will go away. Gun ownership requires responsibility. Pro gun-rights is about the people being given the right of freedom from government control. BUT with ANY of our constitutional rights, exercising them requires responsibility. It is not about the tools (guns) it is about taking away a freedom. If there was a debate about taking away/limiting 1st amendment rights, the country would come unglued. Why is this different? The media gets people killed/hurt as well (how many people have been wrongly accused or lives ruined because the media got something wrong? They never pay for that irresponsibility).
Too many in this country think every problem should be solved with the pull of a trigger. We have the highest gun-death rate of any civilized nation in the world. Wake up, people, and stop the insanity. Stop shooting each other!
It's time to re-addess to whole 2nd Amendment issue as it pertains to ordinary Americans. The way that the rural right wing cling to their guns should be a disturbing eye opener to most of us. Are these folks forming militias to protect us from government? No. They simply detest any government intrusion whatsoever into their personal lives and believe that individual rights are more important than those of the collective. Yes there is a division in this country – and much of it can be traced back to the outcome of the Civil War. This divisiveness and polarization pushed by the religious right against all things Obama have indeed shown us the hostility of many Americans towards any kind of social progression. The Balkinization of America is soon to follow.
I have no problem with people with hunting licenses owning guns used specifically for that purpose, as long as they are safely stored. There is no reason, however for anyone to need an AK-47 or to carry a handgun to a public meeting. Your "right" to own a gun is not more important than my right to live. Oddly, most people in European countries manage to survive in cities without prviately owned handguns and they have far fewer shootings as a result. Leave law enforcement to the police. It's time for us to get civilized and create gun laws that respect human life.
America doesn’t need to restrict legal guns or make it harder to legally buy guns. What needs to be done is to spend more time enforcing the laws we already have and providing harsher punishments to the irresponsible individuals that commit crimes with a gun.
Most gun owners are responsible people that use their guns for hunting or sport. People that carry a gun for protection go through background checks, safety classes, and are reviewed on a regular basis. These people should not be punished because of a few.
Individuals that don’t follow the rules, use guns in crimes, or obtain firearms illegally should be harshly punished.
Money that groups put into gun lobby, on both sides, could be used by local police and county gun boards to more effectively take the guns from people who should not have them and educate the people who do on safe use and storage.
Coming from Canada many years ago, I am in love with this country and wish that I could give it a gift for allowing our family to live and enjoy the American way of life. That "gift" I would love to give to America would be to get rid of the guns. The 2nd Amendment does NOT give everyone the right o bear arms. read it ! It gives a MILITIA the right to bear arms. However, it has now been "sold" to our politicians (who- by the way- are owned by, and in the pockets of the Gun Lobby) that everybody should have guns, including the 7th grader in Miami that was caught with a loaded gun in his school bag just this week. There isn't one single day that any of you can watch the news without at LEAST 2 or 3 killings that took place thaty day in your city. ABD- this saying that "People kill- Guns don't kill" is a bunch of nonsense. What guns do is make a little person into a big person immediately and it gives those pople a quick way to settle a dispute, such as the guy in Naples Florida this week that killed his entire family.
Why is it that every poll that has been taken nationally show that the citizens would prefer to have guns abolished, yet our politicians will not do anything about it except pass more and more silly laws thinking that criminals will suddenly follow those laws ? Gimme a break, America. Just look at the other civilized countries of the world that do not permit free ownership and carrying of guns. If your saying that "Guns don't kill- People Kill" is really true, why is it that all of these other civilized countries have a crime rate that is a mili-fraction of that in the US ? Again- if I could give any "gift" to this country, it would be to get rid of the guns. Period.
I spent over seventeen years in the military. During that time I was awarded two combat infantry badges. I did not hesitate to defend this country. Our constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms. To all those people that dont like guns, if guns are outlawed, what one your other rights will be next. Guns dont kill people, people do. I personally own over 20 guns. I love hunting and going to the range shooting. The guns I own have never shot anyone, but I have the means to defend my home. The average sentence for murder in this country in 7-10 years, that looks like a problem to me. If this country would punish the one's doing the killing and so forth, people might not want to go to prison. I also think that all these rich politicians in Washington D.C. should have to spend at least four years in the military. How can this country ask it's young people to pick up arms against the enemy and then try to take away there own right to own a gun
AK-47's, and other similar high-powered guns, are not for sport or for hunting they were designed solely for the military; therefore, they have no legitimate use for the average American and should be banned.
I'm 71, female, have been a gun owner most of my life and I do believe that we need to have gun control laws. Cities should have the right to pass laws that could help to decrease deaths on their streets and each state it's own laws governing the right to carry.
It always amazes me that many conservative Christians have a reverence for life but love their guns. They have great joy, glee to blow a beautiful defenseless deer away. I just don't get it. I'd like to see a large area set aside for hunters. Let them hunt each other. At least that would be fairer than man against deer. Let's see how brave they really would be then!
In Baltimore Safe Str I certainly admire one person trying to stem the gun attitude in the innercity. But Tyler Perry's movies even show Grandma packing and brandishing a gun to get her point across. I complained about movie reviews that say this is just comedy. It is not it is real life in the hood!
Great Segment, Carol Costello!
I Live in Northern Mn + Don't Hunt + Don't Own a Gun!
But, I've Been Meaning To Get a Gun + I Plan to + Will Get a GUN Soon!
Though Obama's Administration isn't Against Guns at All, There Needs to Be Some Control in the City.
I Agree With the Old Boy; We Need to Keep the Right to Bear Arms + the Ladies Need to Keep the Right to BARE LEGS!
YAH!!
Right FELLAS?!
This may be a twist for you Carol. I grew up in the inner city of Chicago in the alte 60's and early 70's and like Mr. Barksdale, experienced guns being a way in which disputes were handled and merely staying "safe" in the streets. I later joined the service and atained a college degree and took up hunting and found a new love of guns. TOday, I'm a collector to some degree but, here is the twist. I still have the belief that I might need my guns for protection, not just against the random acts of violent crime pervasive in this country (despite the recent FBI statement of violent crime being down in this country) but, against and ever increasing open racial hatred evidenced by the reactions toward Mr. Obama as President and situations such as that of the disabled man crossing the bridge in New Orleans being shot during Katrina. This country is one natural diaster, one major terrorist attack or one political/economic upheaval event from offering groups that spew racial hatred the opportunity to put forth their agendas in a violent way. During the times of lynchings and the prevalence of the KKK in this country African Americans were, for the most part, unarmed and unable to protect themselves against such roving mauraders. Yes, I'm mad as hell because I want to insure my right and ability to protect myself and my family if such an aforementioned event occured in this country. The racial elements in this country that are one day resigned to armed violence are real and should not be summarily dismissed as the ranting of someone suffering paranoia. Indeed, the threat from militant groups that are armed with some of the millions of lose weapons in this country is real and I for one intend to be prepared, simple as that. I will NOT become a victim of someones racial hatred loosed.
I think these laws that they are trying to pass are just insane. I am all for people owning firearms. I have lived in Downtown Los Angeles, and Palmdale, CA and I know whats its like to be surrounded by gangs. By the time I was 12 years old my step father had me keep his 12 gauge shotgun in my room because we got tired of getting burgalurized. All these new gun laws are making it harder for innocent people to protect themselves while all the criminals now where to get unregistered firearms. I will never give my guns no matter what laws pass and I don't care what they do. Good luck with that.
Gun Control...that's the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of. I am an American citizen by birth. I grew up in a high crime neighborhood in the mean streets of NY in the 1980’s as a teenager where gun violence was a daily occurrence. I owned a gun as a young adult in NY and own one now…legally both times! People need to be able to protect themselves! Now I live in the rural south where I hunt, fish and all of those things that gun rights advocates talk about and I’m an NRA life member. I still have my guns to protect my family. My wife and I are concealed weapons permit holders and I wish someone would try to take away my rights. I own 2 assault rifles, 3 hunting rifles, 2 shotguns, and 3 pistols an intend to buy more because it is my right! And yes, I have two children at home, and the guns are locked up and out of their reach. Common sense is what is needed. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. If this president tries to take away my rights, he can kiss my vote away for the next election. I gave it to him once but won’t do it again if he tries any foolishness. And for the record, in case the readers are wondering, I’m AFRICAN AMERICAN and MAD AS HELL!!!!!
Shawn
5 comments to address the matter of "gun rights" – – –
1) The key phrase in the 2nd Amendment is "well-regulated Militia." An individual filling lockers and rooms with weapons is in no way connected with a "well-regulated Militia." Rather, have a standing National Guard and Army Reserve would certainly better qualify as a "well-regulated Militia."
2) The Founding Fathers in no way could envision the evolution of firearms in a 21st century world. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons are nothing more or less than extensions of the male penile member. Any suggestion that the 2nd Amendment was intended for wide-spread amassing of countless firearms is misguide and misdirected.
3) I follow this issue very closely, and have yet to identify any statements from reasonable, rational people in our society who in any way support or promote extreme control or prohibition of firearms. Those who purport there is a groundswell, or even isolated pockets of such an action are misinformed and misguided.
4) Certainly, no reasonable and rational person would object to having all firearms registered. This is a simple matter of enabling law enforcement personnel to expedite investigations involving firearm crimes.
5) All gun crimes should be considered capital offenses against our country. As such, as a matter of preventing a 2nd offense AND as a deterrent, all gun crimes should result in death to the offender.
Our Founding Fathers, in no way, intended the 2nd Amendment to be a rampant and unteathered ownership of firearms. The extremists' argument to the contrary is just plain wrong and silly.
I remember the number 4,000 + people who died during the first 4 years of the Iraq war.
No – not in Iraq.
These are the number of people who were murdered in Washington DC and Philadelphia (just these two cities alone) during this period.
Where is the outrage?
The story that aired this morning(22 Sept) is "apples and oranges"! Trying to draw a comparison between inner-city punks that procure their weapons ILLEGALLY and a man that abides by the law and follows LEGAL guidelines to own a weapon is an insult to him, I, and every other LAW ABIDING citizen in the United States. You want gun control: STOP THE CRIMINALS! Put more LEOs on the streets. Blaming those of us that abide by the law and comparing us to punks on the street with ill gotten firearms is just plain wrong! Go after the bad guy and leave the good guys alone. That the gun control that we need!
I served a career in the military defending our nation for two reasons.
1. I believed in the freedom of speech.
2. I believe in the right to bear arms.
Our freedom of speech died with the "politically correct" agenda.
Our right to bear arms has been under attack now for many years. I own four handguns and one rifle which is similar to the military AR-15. There is currently a bill being pushed (HR45) which if it were to be officially sponsored and passed, would make me a criminal, since I would not abide by its requirements. Every fellow gun owner I have spoken with, agrees with me that compliance with that bill is totally unacceptable and we would fight to keep our weapons.
As there are over 200 million firearms in the hands of about 70 million private citizens and as, so far, all I have spoken with, will fight rather than comply with such a bill, I can easily see millions of firearms owners rising up in armed rebellion to defend their rights.
Banning guns won't change anything. Making something illigal does not make it unattainable, but only a minor inconvinience. Prohibition of alcohol is a proof of that statement. I think a more effective solution would be to add a more aggressive and involved police force to the areas where voilent crimes are frequent.
June 6, 2009 my adult daughter was shot in the head, a mother of two teens shot while at a gas station by a stranger for who knows why. She lived and still is suffering today. The police investigation did NOT even include looking at the film of the 5 cameras at that C store....My guess is the cops too busy with the failed war on drugs which most now know needs changing. Prohibitions increase criminal behavior and the only thing stupider than drug abuse is the war on drugs.
I have been a hunter my whole life and support 'shall issue' gun permit laws nation wide....follow the money ..who profits from the failed war on drugs--for profit private prisons to name one. Guns don't cause the violence but prohibitions do. btw I am a RN with many years work in detox and drug treatment and I support legal drugs like cops at http://www.leap.cc do!
I am a gun owner, I own several guns, and I have owned a gun since I was eleven. I have never been a supporter of gun control although I've always thought the NRA's position that everything is legal is wrong. Some of the recent images I've seen are changing my mind. if the citizen who feels it is necessary to carry and display a weapon at a public event is typical of the mentality of the current gun owner, maybe we do need new gun laws.
Mad as Hell? I doubt it. You are upset about the child who was killed for no apparent reason, The drive by shooter who kills the pregnant woman. These deaths could have happened in many other ways. You are upset that you can not stop killers from killing and Joe Wilson from shouting you lie.
You are upset that you can not control everything the way you want it to be. Attempting to take away the 2nd ammendment right to bear arms is only a vain attempt to try to control what is uncontrollable. That is why you did not have a single story about the man in New York who recently saved his workers from harm/death by using his shotgun killing the thieves and protecting his employees.
You can't say you want freedom and then try to control it. First thing Hitler did when invading a country was to take their arms away. Is this what you want a government that steals your freedoms under the falsehood of protecting you?
On the gun control issue,
I believe that a law abiding citizen should be allowed any kind off gun he wishes to buy, If every law abiding citizen were to turn in every gun they had, there would still be thousands of criminals out there WITH guns. Criminals will allways have guns and when the supply drys up, they will find their guns by killing officers of the law.
Not a good thing to look forward to.
Let's have more criminal control and less gun control for the good people of America. After all, only good people will obey the laws the criminals WONT.
"Erica Reinhard September 22nd, 2009 7:35 am ET
Please know that the ONLY way an individual can own an AK47 is if they have a Federal firearm license, or if the full automatic mechanism has been disabled so the rifle can only shoot one round at a trigger pull. Automatic weapons have been illegal to own for decades now.
Erica"
Absolutely incorrect. an FFL has nothing to do with owning a firearm. an AK47 can be purchased by anyone without a criminal record over the age of 18. (They are semi-auto) Full autos are NOT illegal. They are perfectly legal. You have to get your sheriff to sign off on it and pay the ATF a tax stamp of $200. The drawback is the process takes roughly 6 months.
the second amendment is there in case the politicians forget about the others.
Let's make sure when we're looking at statics that we include the % of legally owned guns that never end up used in a crime to the % of crimes with firearms. I would guess that the numbers would be eye opening.
How many of the firearms were legally purchased that were used in the the act of the crime?
It would seem that once again we focus on the symptom and not the actual disease, i.e. crime, lack of education and the breakdown of the american family unit.
I support the constitution, which doesn't seem to be a popular position these days.
"I think only police officers, and people who hunt should have guns. When hunters get a gun they should sign a paper saying the gun is for hunting, If they shoot a person they go to jail for life…"
Maureen, so you would put me in prison for life if I used my duck hunting shotgun to save your daughter from being raped or murdered?
I can hear the response now, "Well, that's different."