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
The Founding Fathers considered the Bill of Rights to include the Second Amendment to be universal rights, not just American rights. I thank God for the Second Amendment for the lives that it saves every day. For the mother with a gun to protect herself from the ex-husband that won't obey a restraining order. For every potential victim of a violent crime with a gun, when the Police are "only" minutes away.
The media pays less attention to cars for which there is no Constitutional right, but kill more people every year. Even backyard swimming pools are more lethal than firearms.
Firearms are a part of our heritage and the American tradition.
I live in Baltimore. I own a gun. Why? Because the cops take 15 minutes to respond, and even in the nice areas you're never really safe. Last month someone climbed my neighbors fence into her backyard. Month before we saw to crooks running, literally, across our front yards.
Whether the bad guy busting through my window has a gun too, a knife or a bat, he can kill me just as dead, and I need the tools to protect myself. I'd rather the criminals walk around knowing there's a 40% chance of any given house they might break into having a gun-wielding home owner defending it, than have them thinking my street is their oyster. I'd like it better if they thought 20% of any people they might attack on the street might be able to defend themselves too, but I guess Baltimore needs another few decades of innocent people dying at the hands of crooks before that occurs to the people in charge.
Dante Barksdale? Wasn't he a character in HBO's The Wire? And to the moron that said the Second Amendment only gives us rights to muskets; the 2A doesn't GIVE us anything, the Bill of Rights are a list of limitations on government. To say that it limits us to muskets is like saying the 1st Amendment limits us to quill and ink and printing presses.
Above all else, the 2A has NOTHING to do with hunting.
It seems to me we are ignoring the elephant in the room. Where do most of these murders take place? In large urban centers.
In what neighborhoods do they take place? You all know the answer to that.
What is the likely race of the killers? Should we ban all those of that race?
If not, why not? After all, a great many here advocate punishing and restricting the innocent gun owners universally for crimes they didn't commit. So why would banning an entire race, innocent and guilty alike be any different?
Be careful what foolish crap you endorse, it could bite you in your own hip pockets.
Chuck, that "racist" ploy carrries less and less credibility every time it's used, but, hey, don't let that stop you. Whenever you knuckleheads use it, you show yourselves to be the racists. You do realize that gun control laws actually have racist roots as Jim Crow laws, right?
Carol, the musket was the state of the art weapon of war when the Second Amendment was penned. "Think about it" back at'cha. When you read the Founders' writings (if you have the courage to do so) concerning the right to keep and bear arms, do you really think they meant for the citizen militia to remain at muskets as the government continued to get ever more advanced weaponry?
Jacky, if you are a Democrat with no problem with guns, you are a rarity in your party, at least as far as those Dems in power. You want to reassure us that you Dems don't want to take our guns, but how do you account for Dianne Feinstein's "Mr. and Mrs America, turn them all in" style statements? Twice, she has made such pronouncements. So back up your words by holding the Democrat Party leaders accountable to the Constitution, or I'll just dismiss what you say as so much hot air. And why are you trying to reassure the Republicans? Half of them want guns gone too. Reassure us Americans who hold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Carol wrote: "The second amendment gives us the right to bear MUSKETS, not uzis. Think about it."
First of all, the 2nd Amendment gives or grants nothing. It guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. I also do not recall the words muskets or Uzi anywhere in the text. How about we apply your flawed logic to the 1st Amendment? Then the right to free speech and freedom of the press does not apply to radio or television–they didn't exist when it was written. Freedom of religion doesn't apply to the Methodist Church. It wasn't created until 50 years after the 1st Amendment was ratified after all.
Danny – "let’s also ban cars since according to the CDC there were more car related fatalities than all gun deaths combined (murder+suicide+accidental)"
Cars have uses other than murder and mayhem, so we tolerate them. Vehicular deaths need to be reduced, by more/ better safety devices, better highways, better driver education, more coherent driving laws (and uniformity in all states), the removal of parking lots from bars, and more. Granted they can be dangerouse, but unlike guns, are required by today's society.
But since guns make robbery, murder, suicide and child deaths from guns as simple as pulling the trigger, they need to be better regulated.
Than means limiting their rapid fire functionality, clip size, improved safety devices (locks, code locks), and the continuance of background checks. That won't prevent abuse, but will reduce it.
Last but perhaps most important, since they are everywhere in the US and will always be available for crime use, I recommend a federal law that would mandate a long prison sentence, without parole, for anyone who deliberately shoots another, except in self defence or accident. Whether death or permanent impairment ensues, the penalty should be based on the act, NOT the outcome. Intentional assault use = twenty years to life minimum.
Dear Carol,
"I DO NOT GET DRESSED UP TO GO TO CHURCH WITHOUT A HANDGUN WITHIN REACH." True statement meant to get your attention, law enforcement background and big changes in the demogaphics of my neighborhood has caused this. Wish it was not this way. I have a good size arsernal of long and handguns, most are law enforcement and personal defense types and I intend to get a new model or two that I am impressed with. I wish you well and hope you never have a need to defend yourself. I strongly sugguest you need a pocket or purse pepper spray, at least, on you at all times. Maybe your whineing voice inflections can protect you but I doubt it.
Let's ban guns
let's also ban cars since according to the CDC there were more car related fatalities than all gun deaths combined (murder+suicide+accidental)
Jane Gehring wrote "I am always very interested in gun control stories as the news media has noticeably ignored the story of the number of children who are killed or maimed every year by hand guns in the home or how many women are killed because guns are so readily available when violence erupts in the home."
Jane, according to the Center For Disease Control statistics, more children die annually from falling down than from guns.
Maybe we should ban trees, junglegyms, and slippery bathtubs...
Meh. It's really hard to get worked up over gun violence when you actually look at the numbers. A low estimate of 250 million guns in America, and how many guns used in homicides every year?
Meh.
US citizens are understandably confused by an ever changing health care bill. Reducing the confusion would bring about a better consensus. I believe there are five bills at the moment, with the focus this week on the Baucus Senate bill. Based on the text of President Obama’s speech to Joint Session of Congress, I have many concerns. Just a couple are as follows:
President Obama’s stated during his speech to the Joint Session of Congress that “we will eventually be spending more on Medicare than every other government program”. I agree. The unfunded liability is now $37 trillion over the next 75 years. How does this justify creating another program to cover most individuals under age 65?
The President claimed he can finance health care without adding to our federal deficit. The various plans envision spending about $880 over ten years. Most plans would cut Medicare by up to $500 billion, mainly by reducing waste and abuse. If waste and abuse can be eliminated, why hasn’t it been eliminated already? President Obama also stated that he would “ensure that you – America’s seniors – get the benefits you’ve been promised. However, President Obama has stated that Medicare Advantage program provides “unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies…” The Democrats want to reduce Medicare Advantage by over $170 billion. For the 24% of seniors who are enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program, this is clearly a cut in benefits.
If only people got up-in-arms over the first amendment rather than the second. People will fight to the death over their guns and the constitution, but denying gays the same rights as everyone else and we get nothing but a whimper. Ridiculous.
How about a novel idea that we pass a gun controll laws for CRIMINALS and enforce it to the hilt. Law abiding citizens are by definition "law abiding" and do not misuse their gun ownership rights. Oh ,sorry, I forgot we already have those laws on the books but don't enforce them very well. Whose fault is that???
Your news article reference missed the news piece. You really need to send a team to cover the "Mad as Hell Doctors" caravan to Washington. Word is spreading over the internet about their route. Where ever they go, crowds of real grass roots supporters of a public option are turning out to rally with them.
I have read these comments with interest. I believe we need to develop the will to effectively address crime rather than indulge in further misguided efforts to regulate law abiding individuals.
The second amendment guarantees that our inherent right as individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government. I do not believe that certain guns should or can be banned for their cosmetic appearance without jeopardizing all guns and freedoms. Surely there will subsequently be those that find high powered rifles objectionable, or shotguns, or ATVs, or bicycles, or cheeseburgers, for example.
I hunt, I fish, I sport shoot. I often hunt deer and hogs with an AR15 chambered in an appropriate caliber. It is a lighter, less powerful semi-automatic firearm than larger bore hunting rifles. It is an accurate, dependable firearm that is normally configured with a 5 round magazine for hunting and larger ones for sport shooting. It is considerably less powerful than hunting rifles, some of which are semi-automatic and function nearly identically to the "black" rifle but are substantially more powerful. I often hunt with large caliber handguns, depending on the situation. I shoot trap, skeet and sporting clays. I target shoot. I enjoy these activities.
I provide my family meat primarily by hunting and fishing. I teach firearms use to Boy Scouts. I teach concealed weapons classes. I teach hunter education. I help to develop solid citizens.
The bottom line for me is that individuals should possess the skill, knowledge and attitude necessary to safely and responsibly use firearms. The overwhelming majority of responsible gun owners do. There are an unfortunate few who do not. And there are criminals who do not or care not. That does not mean our inherent rights as law abiding and responsible citizens should be infringed. It does mean, and prove, that freedom is not free and that there are no guarantees in this world; as many commenters have pointed out, taking away guns would not change that. There is a price to be paid for everything, especially the high price we pay for freedom, but it pales in contrast to the cost of servitude, dependence, and slavery, conditions imposed on individuals when rights are infringed and that destroy the very will and soul of a people.
CAROL, among others is misinformed. The right to keep and bear arms is not limited to muskets- just as the right to free speech is not limited to 18th century media and technology. The idea is absurd at its root. The second amendment was designed to allow the populace to protect itself through force against its own government, something the authors had first hand knowledge of. If the government does not fear the possibility of an armed rebellion, there will be no limits on the power that the government can amass. I have never heard Oprah contend that she has no first amendment rights to free speech because the founding fathers could have never envisioned satellites beaming her words to billions in real time. It's a mistake for CNN to offer hunting and recreation as the reasonable use for weapons. Even if nobody at all hunted or shot skeet, there would be a need for a second amendment. I find it unimaginable that anyone could not see the possibility that our government could gain too much power and abuse our civil rights to a breaking point if we had no right to keep and bear arms. Imagine the last or current administration (depending on your personal politics) without the constraint an armed populace provides. Imagine those regimes deciding 2 terms isn't enough...
Murder in the metropolitan areas is a big problem. Sacrificing Americas long term security so you can sleep well tonight is foolish.
It is clear form the range of comments that most of the posters are divided based on how the gun issue feels to them personally. The range of ideas are from thoughtful to ridiculous. The gun issue is going to continue to divide our country until the politicians get enough backbone to face the issue and allow an honest debate. From where I stand we should let each state develop a plan to meet the 2nd ammendments requirements. New York and Californians may not agree with the people of Texas as to how to treat the gun issue. Good, people from Texas that don't like our gun laws could move to California or New York . We have had a serious influx of immigrants from both north and south in Texas but all I hear is how trerrible this place is when I listen to the news. Please feel free to move to the coast where everything is beautiful and they all sing songs around the campfire while the people of Texas are killing each other with all the guns.
The constitution guarantees our right to own a gun and the law abiding Americans in this country should have the FREEDOM to exercise this right. You do not need any stronger example that gun control does not work than our current prison system. Prisons are the most controlled environment in our country but everyday inmates (criminals) find ways to commit murders,rapes assaults,and robberies. Gun control DOES NOT stop criminals from committing crime, countries that have banned guns have proven this fact. The anti-gunners fantasy that getting rid of guns will even reduce crime is false, it just lets the criminal know that you are for sure unarmed. We should all be interested in preserving our freedoms as well as our rights. Today it's my freedoms under attack tomorrow it may be yours.
George Samuels wrote: "A State’s National Guard has replaced its well-regulated Militia of individual citizens called to duty. The National Guard has replaced the militia."
Time to go back to school George, your behind in the times. State National Guardsmen don't belong to the State anymore, they answer to the Fed. Do your homework next time. This is the reason why the government can take the guardmen from your State and send them to Iraq, because they own them.
Also the concept of Militia was that every able body male (in those days) was required to have a weapon,shot and powder maintained by himself in his home, for this militia as part of citizenship. Some localities even issued weapons for their personnel. Either way, everyone was require to take part.
Class dismissed.
We DO have a right to bear arms. period. regulating guns only keeps guns out of the hands of people who follow the law. if criminals followed the law, then theyw ouldnt be criminals now would they? criminals are not going to follow regulations if you put them in place. so regulations on guns DO NOT HELP. as a matter of fact areas where guns are strictly controlled, crime goes up! because criminals know that people cant defend themselves and take advantage of it. no criminal is gonna go "hmmm guns are regulated here. lets follow the gun laws." not gonna happen. moist criminals get their guns from the balck market which is impossible to regulate. the solution is to allow law abiding citizens to carry guns. businees owners and employees as well. criminals only do jobs they think they can get away with pretty safely. if a criminal walked into a 7-11 and all 3 employees had side arms, out in the open, attached to them to eb seen, and knew there was a chance there were 2 shotguns behind the counter as well. he/she is NOT gonna rob the place. if the criminals new that every little old lady carried a Glock and knew how to use it, little old ladies wouldnt get mugged so much. if these girls were taught by their parents the correct way to use a firearm and had one with them, they wouldnt get kidnapped and kept outside ina tent for 20 years. thats just the facts. you take guns from law abiding citizens and the criminals take advantage and commit more crimes because they're not worried about being killed. as far as the black communities complaining that their cities have sucha hi crime rate and people are gettign murdered and broken into all the time, where ther's a reason for that. because most black communities are the regulated communities and are the ones saying no guns. thats what happens when people cant defend themselves. most of the people in these communinitties where there are a lto of murders (Black, White or otherwise) are criminals anyways and have ILLEGAL guns anyways. we're not talking about ILLEGAL guns. absolutely take those away. we're talking about legal guns. and legal guns should be allowed. if your community is bad on crime, dont sit there and whine about it. take it back! its your community. fight for it, move out or shut up about it. if YOUR not gonna get up off your butt and do anythign about it, then you dont have aright to complain about it. if you take away legal guns, then the only ones who will have guns are the bad guys. that snot good to have only the bad guys have guns and no one else. hell no. change the odds. give good people guns to outgun the bad guys.
It is important that we (law abiding citizens) protect our rights to bear arms. There are few rights that americans have that are regulated like gun rights. You don't see government regulations imposed on religion like you do for guns.
My fire arms are not for killing or taking what is not mine. It is certainly not to cause fear in my fellow americans. I have my firearms to protect myself and my neighbors.
When i carry my weapon, it is not exposed or open for the world (thats a personal choice). It is safely and discretely holstered in my pocket. I never, never want to use the gun against a human life. I look at it like an insurance policy. It is there if I need it and only if i need it.
I also have an assault rife. Yes an assault rife. like with my smaller guns, I never look to use the weapon. Last i checked no brokers are offering Apocalypse, or Katrina situation insurance. When all hell breaks loose... and it can occur, then an AR 15 is what I would like to have. It's simply protection.
"2. ‘Assault weapons’ are machine guns, not semi-automatic rifles. Machine guns are highly regulated. There has only been one case of a legally owned machinegun being used in a crime in this nation’s history….and that was by a cop. Just because a rifle is black or doesn’t have a wooden stock that doesn’t make it an assault weapon."
Very incorrect, a machine gun is not an assault weapon. An assault weapon is and ONLY is a weapon that you can switch from automatic to select fire. IE: Military M-16
I am always very interested in gun control stories as the news media has noticeably ignored the story of the number of children who are killed or maimed every year by hand guns in the home or how many women are killed because guns are so readily available when violence erupts in the home. I am beginning to think that the news media is being muffled or they are too busy with such earth shaking stories as Michael Jackson's death that they don't care to do in depth reporting about something that might really matter to the country.
News is not entertainment; it should be thought provoking and be about the important issues of the day.
There are many gun owners who don't hunt or commit crimes – it's sheer idiocy to draw a definitive conclusion between guns and crime (as if guns are the only tool with which crimes are committed); just like it would be idiocy to do the same with knives, forks and spoons and obesity. The best bumper sticker I've ever seen read "Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat". No gun has ever leaped into the air and shot someone without someone on the other end – how about changing people and mindset? Novel idea...makes too much sense.
I shoot competitively for the military; as do hundreds of Airmen, Soldiers and Marines. Beyond that are the thousands of youth, civilians, seniors etc. who enjoy firearms within disciplines which don't kill anything more than a piece of paper or a clay bird. I'd hate to see the US end up like some European countries whose Olympic teams can't even live in their own countries to train – very sad.
What's everyone's fetish with the AK? Seriously? Every ignorant opponent to gun ownership cites the "AK" for no other reason save the "media" having vilified it to no end...more idiocy.
What gets my goat is that there's so much t'do about more gun laws when every agency has failed at enforcing what's there already. How about trying that? The 'law abiding' gun owners easily outnumber the criminal element...but that won't last long if the US decides it wants to be like Britain. I'd rather we were like Switzerland, if anything...that would be a very good thing.
Conversely, of course, I don't think gun ownership is a "God given" right...as if God's rockin' his Barrett 107 up in heaven with an NRA poster on his wall. However, I do believe it's as much of a right as it is for a person to own a knife...everyone in the civilized world owns a knife, for whatever purpose...unless you cut your food with a q-tip.
Guns, why the fascination? Do people really believe they make them safer? If you own a gun you are more likely to die by violence or suicide by said gun. Bring a gun to a bar, get drunk, get into a fight and kill someone, spend the rest of your life in jail, alcohol and guns DO NOT mix. Guns DO NOT make anyone safe, their existence alone is an affront to all life. Open your eyes, you may feel owning a gun makes you safe and to some extent it may, but think of this, flood the country with guns, everyone gets one, will you really feel safe? Do you really believe everyone will be as responsible as you?
A State's National Guard has replaced its well-regulated Militia of individual citizens called to duty. The National Guard has replaced the militia. Time and facts have changed since the Constitution's writing. The Supreme Court interpret's it. The right to bear arms is well connected to the Militia in the Constitution's sheer language. "Bearing arms" is separate and distinct from "bearing" arms for State-regulated hunting.
I would like to see more news about the facts and fewer stories about who is winning the race. Instead of reporting how many people favor a proposal please tell us what the proposal is. Instead of showing a few people getting upset about something, please explain the topic they are upset about.
Instead of reporting the comments of a few citizens about gun laws please tell us what the gun laws are.
Please do not loop a film clip endlessly during a single report.
CNN needs to also bring on MAD AS HELL DOCTORS who've been going around the US in a Care-a-van and talking with mad as hell Americans about the health care crisis. CNN bopped off the name, whatever, Raise your hand if you've had a health care nightmare?
I'm gunning for the profiteering insurance companies, big pharma, & HMOs that are like pirates ripping us off. If Medicare for all -HR 676 and single payer financing fails as a public option in Congress, the insurance companies win and the people LOSE, big time. and the pirate rulers don't even need big guns to shoot us down.
How can you do a segment called "Mad As Hell" and not be covering the Mad As Hell Doctors tour that is currently traveling across the country, sheding light on the single-payer healthcare initiative?? I know for a fact that you have received emails, comments, posts regarding coverage of the doctors, yet you continue to disregard them. Please ensure that your news coverage is fair and unbiased or otherwise you will be just like Fox News. You covered the "Tea Bag Parties", so I expect to see the same amount of coverage for the Mad As Hell Doctors tour. And what a perfect segway you have started... don't let America down by playing favorites or you will be just another station WE choose to disregard.
Actually, I think having a gun for anything other than a non-violent sport is totally gay!!!! People we are HU-MAN and I'm sure that we all think that we are "The Most Intelligent Speceis On The Planet". But, yet and still we kill other men and animals by getting major help when using a gun. It's like we are smart enough to put a man on the moon but we can't be creative enough to kill using yourself and knowledge. This is not bowling you don't need a handicap! We need to start acting like Rocky and find some nuts.
Children are tought how to walk across the street safely, how to exit a buning building safely, how to deal with strangers safely, and eventualy drive safely what is different about guns? Is it becouse they kill? What about fires, what about car accidents and hit and runs, what about Child abductions don't those couse harm? So by this reasioning shouldn't we teach children gun safety, not saying that they need range time, but basic gun safety and familierise children with the notion that violence is bad and guns are not toys or to be handled in an unsafe manner. You remember when you were a kid and got a new toy for the first few days you can't get enough of it and then you grew familiar with it and bored of it and don't care about it. Make it so the child is familier with guns and the novilty is lost and he nolonger pays attention to the safety class and guns are no longer cool or macho they are mundane and drab and uninturesting and they've had too much already and don't want to deal with it out of school they've made guns and school a boring asociation and they don't like school and thus don't like guns, at least not to the point of wondering what its like to pul the trigger or harm someone. WE NEED TO GIVE ALL CHILDREN GUN SAFTEY CLASSES TO THE POINT OF BORDOM AND LOSS OF INTUREST.
Hey Carol, WRONG. Think about it! The 2nd ammendment gives us the right to own what ever the current arm is that is fielded by our forces. In 1791 that was a flintlock. Today it is a selectivie fire assualt rifle. What ever it takes to make me be able to defend my family and our country! From all tyrants, domestic or foriegn!
All you idiots who think somebody else will fight for your freedom.
Almost every house in Israel has a military style weapon. That's why they have been so succesful in defending their country.
Oh by the way, I carry a very small gun to compensate for my very large penis.
According to the FBI, the citizens of the USA are more likely to be the victim of a violent asault than they are of being in an automobile accident. Originally I was anti-gun, then found the sport of competitive shooting. Once you own guns you get sucked up in the great gun debate. So a little soul searching brought me to the realization that it is responsible to own guns. Several times in the history of this country, citizens have tried to litigate against the local law enforcement community for having the audacity to not be present when said citizen had suffered an assault. The courts have said repeatedly that it is not the responsibility of law enforcement to protect you the private citizen. They are there as a detterent and as an after the fact apprehender and prosecutor. They are not your personal body guards. So if it is not the police's responsibility to protect you, whose is it? The girl scouts? The nuns at the local convent? The residents at the local nursing home? The folks in the bassinets at the nearest new-born unit in the hospital?
Speaking for myself I'll step up to the plate and assume that responsibility for myself and my family. Being a person of small physical stature, a gun brings all the big bad boogie men up to my level. Who the anti-gun crowd would utilize for that task would be an interesting answer.
Yeah, truthfully I think having a gun or any weapon to kill other humans is definitely gay. We are supposed to be hu-man "The Smartest Species On The Planet," yet we are too afraid or too lazy to learn ways to do it without having major help. This ain't bowling we don't need any handicap to help us when. We need to act like Rocky and go find our nuts.
Charlton Heston said it well. "I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!"
it,s a rap !
What the ex-gangbanger doesn't understand is that killing people is already illegal. Making new laws to govern the lawbreakers is like trying to dig a hole under a wave at the beach. Futility.
Guns are just the easiest way to kill, but if it's not guns, it'll be something else. Removing guns from the equation (even if that was possible...which it will never be, as criminals willing to shoot someone are not going to obey a law restricting gun possession) doesn't change the fact that what really needs to change is a culture that glorifies thugs, gangs and crime.
Inner city youth (black, white, latino) are drawn to the thug life. Gangs, drugs, money, power. It's in the music. It's in the culture. It's not about color. It's about culture.
Until the inner city gang culture is ostracized by the inner city population and is eradicated once and for all, there will be no change. These "feel good" laws banning guns or ammo or curfews won't change a thing. People have to WANT to change and then run the rats out of town.
Unfortunately, that's easier said than done.
So it's no wonder politicians grasp at easy "solutions" that push the problem down the line for someone else to fix. To them, it doesn't have to be a real solution. It only has to look like one to the masses.
Here is a story for you. Sen. Reid (D) and Sen Ensign (R) were able to get Public Law 107-350 passed 12/17/02. As a result, the US Dept of the Interior – BLM donated 2900 acres of land, valued at $1.5 billion dollars to Clark County, NV (Las Vegas) to use as a "shooting park. " They subsequently used $64 million dollars in SNPLMA funds for the first phase of what will be the world's largest shooting "park." The Bureau of Land Management gave them this land because the senators said that the target shooting areas were too close to populated areas. Once Clark County received this land from the BLM, the City of Las Vegas approved the development of over a thousand homes and a high school within one mile of the world's largest shooting park. This City of Las Vegas never disclosed their plans to build this shooting complex to prospective home buyers or builders, in fact, they colluded to hide their plans. Up until 2008 the property was shown as open space in the master plan. This is a rural community with horse farms which will be turned upside down when this mammoth complex opens. Although home owners took the matter to Federal District Court, Judge Lloyd George (at the Lloyd George Courthouse) partially ruled against them. The BLM did admit that an Envirionmental study should have been done. However now they say there are no significant findings (it is just one of the greatest paleontalogical sites in the world.). We are still awaiting the final word from the BLM. It is amazing how guns can inspire nonpartisanship at the expense of the people.
Extremely, biased reporting, just what one would expect from cnn
QUOTE: "AK-47’s, and other similar high-powered guns, are not for sport or for hunting ...therefore, they have no legitimate use for the average American and should be banned."
Totally wrong: Ak-47s are NOT high powered, they are a weaker round then almost all hunting rifles.
Also, the AK-47s available in the US are NOT the military design – they have been redesigned for our market to only shoot ONE shot, and CAN'T do full auto.
QUOTE: "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."
Newsflash: automatic weapons have been banned in the US since the 1930s.
The 'assault weapons' the media goes on about are simply guns that shoot ONE ROUND per trigger pull like all the others – the difference is that they look scary because they have black plastic grips / stocks instead of wood.
" September 22nd, 2009 3:49 pm ET
One major flaw in your story: there is no current pending gun legislation in Congress. President Obama has not campaigned on any gun legislation and has no intention of “taking away your guns”. It is legally impossible to “take your guns” and bypass a conservative Supreme Court.
So what’s the issue? People disagree about many things but this is a non-issue. The fear that “Obama is going to take away my guns” has no basis in reality. It is being pushed by the talk radio crowd, the NRA and nobody else."
See, this just proves you don't have a grasp on the situation. Obama said during his campaign MANY TIMES that he wanted PERMANENTLY reinstate the expired assault weapon ban. Around the same time the Dems also had a proposed list of "assault weapons" floating around that was about 75% of the guns in current production. Obama even said it on the whitehouse.gov webpage on the day of his inauguration as part of his "urban policy". I don't mean this to sound like a personal attack because it is not, but you are either ignorant of the situation, or spouting mis-information.
Do you see why we're angry now? A bunch of people who are ignorant of the actual facts telling us we're over-reacting. You don't even know that the words coming out of your mouth are absolutely erroneous, and yet you think that we are idiots.
Imagine an 85 year old grandmother who has never been in a car in her whole life. Now, put her behind the wheel and let her loose on the freeway for 5 minutes. Now imagine giving her the right to decide the speed limit for the entire country and she decides 35 mph should be plenty fast enough for anybody to get to where they need to go. That's what it's like listening to non-gunners tell us what we should be happy with.
The level of freedom I have to lawfully exercise an "inalienable right" should not be decided by the comfort level of the most feeble and meek people in the country.
The 2nd Amendment is very explicit! The comment about the 2nd amendment pertaining to muskets was quite comical! Using that thinking, then the 1st amendment must not cover radio, tv and printed media; it must only cover town criers!
I was in law enforcement for over 20 years, and you know what? I never worried about the person who legally owned a gun, it was the illegal guns and criminals that worried me. I also don't believe all that is said about " assault weapons". Just because a gun is black does not make it an assault weapon. The me an assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon, which I might add is illegal to possess. A good case in point is the Glock semi-automatic pistol. When they first came on the market, all the media put out false information about the weapon being undetectable because it was plastic. Well guess what, the media lied, again! The only plastic on the Glock is the receiver, which also contains metal parts. The slide and the barrel are solid metal! How is that going to go through undetected? The media did their part, though, by getting people upset about a non-issue!
Reed said: "I don’t need stinger missiles to hunt squirrels".
Reed – the 2nd Amendment is about citizens having military grade weapons in order to be a deterent against tyranny, so that the government will be 'afraid' and stay in line with the will of the people.
I think it's interesting how people who don't use certain rights/liberties, have no problem doing away with them. I personally, defend ALL of our freedoms, especially those in the Constitution, regardless of whether I use them or not. I think those of you who wish to "INFRINGE" upon, "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms," or any other of MY RIGHTS, are about as COMMUNIST as the day is long. I'd also like to invite you to leave my country; I think China would be rather suiting.
One major flaw in your story: there is no current pending gun legislation in Congress. President Obama has not campaigned on any gun legislation and has no intention of "taking away your guns". It is legally impossible to "take your guns" and bypass a conservative Supreme Court.
So what's the issue? People disagree about many things but this is a non-issue. The fear that "Obama is going to take away my guns" has no basis in reality. It is being pushed by the talk radio crowd, the NRA and nobody else.
There were 3 cops in Pittsburgh killed and 2 sheriff officers in FL killed recently because "Obama is going to take away my guns".
You owe it to your viewers and tell them the reality about this issue.
"......the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The government has already infringed my Constitutional right to bear arms. Shouldnt they be arrested for violation of our Constitution like other countries do?
P.S. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is there any mention of hunting.
In theory, the government is supposed to work for us, not us for them. The 2nd Amendment was put in place for the general populace to be able to fight a tyrannical government, and if you read the letters of Thomas Jefferson and other forefathers of our country, the 2nd is also there for you to protect yourself from those who wish to do you bodily harm.
You want a country where guns are banned? Move to Iraq. Move to Mexico. Move to England where the crime rate has skyrocketed every year since implementing their complete gun ban in 1997. Until last year D.C. had a gun ban since 1976. How safe have the streets of D.C. been for the past 30 years? Must've been paradise...
Not all Americans are stupid and lazy. Many of us agree that gun regulations are absolutely necessary.
What if everybody were allowed to have guns. Problem?
I'm a 21year retired Navy Vet, I've been all over this big blue marble, seen hundreds of different cultures. I've seen what some of worst things that people can do to each other.
If you think that the police are here (in the U.S.) to protect you, then you are misguided. The guns are for their own self protection, not yours.
If you think that registration of firearms is the answer think again, registration=confiscation. Heck, even Bush confiscated guns during Katrina. New York, new jersey, DC, Califonia have all used records to confiscate firearms.
How many of you that are gun haters have ever had you life threatened? Probably none.
Look, I have no problem with pacifest(sheep). If you don't want to fight for your life, thats your choice. Lay down and die. I could care less. But don't blame the cops, drugs, the law or anything or anyone but yourself for the situation you find yourself in.
However, do not tread on my right to protect myself and my family because you chose not to.
And to you hunters out there that say Americans don't need this gun or that gun to hunt, oh give me a break. You can hunt with anything and you'll dang well know it. So start smelling what your shoveling. Heck, I've hunted with an E-tool and eat well that night.
nuff said.
Anti-gun people please put a sign in your yard stating "I do not own a gun" and rely on the police for your personal protection.
For all that want gun control, use both hands while shooting!
Just so we're all on the same page here...
FBI annual statistics show that "ASSAULT RIFLES", AK-47's and AR-15's, account for about 4% of all gun violence. Those evil, scary guns that "are only made for killing" that some of you are ringing your hands over are actually some of the least used.
This is a fact.
To make an analogy-you're in the Sahara desert and your biggest concern is rain.
Lets face it, the people who are out shooting up people on the streets are not law abiding citizens who follow proper gun laws and regulations. They are CRIMINALS and regardless of however many new laws are put in place, they will continue their CRIMINAL ways and purchase unregistered guns from other criminals or other countries. Please America wake up and realize that we should NOT give up our Constitutional rights in the name of "safety". When our elected officials start taking away our rights in the name of "safety", it then becomes a slippery slope to other Constitutional violations until this no longer is the United of States of America.
I saw a comment earlier in the thread that gun ownership is not a god given right, but a constitutional one. People are so ignorant of what the constitution and the bill of right says. The framers make the point that these rights (and MANY more not specifically listed) are granted to us by our CREATOR and are inalienable. It is a god given right to defend ones self from any threat to individual or family. They were also smart enough to spell out in the federalist papers and the transcripts of the ratification that this was not just a right to muskets or muzzle loaders which were state of the art for the time, but they had seen the advances in technology and knew that things would change and so they wrote that the people had the right to posses the "common firearms of the day". I really wish they would teach this stuff in schools. It is also obvious that most anti postings are ignorant of the facts about gun violence and gun control as those facts show that here in the US over the past two decades gun ownership has risen tremendously and the number of states allowing concealed carry has gone from 8 to near 40. At the same time violent crime has been on the decline. There is an FBI report that shows that 45% of violent gun crime occurs in the few states where concealed carry permits are hard to get and the other 55% happens in the states that issue permits. Why is it that 45% of these crimes happen in <10 states? There are also facts showing that after Great Briton changed the hand gun ban to be stricter in 1997, gun crime in London and the surrounding suburbs has risen tremendously, something like 80%. This little fact is hard to come by since they don’t want to loose tourism dollars. I cite many facts here but it will all fall on deaf ears since those with an agenda will simply ignore them and cite outright lies by the VPC and the Brady campaign to justify taking away rights that this great nation was founded on.
gunhater said:
September 22nd, 2009 11:14 am ET
If there were NO guns in the hands of people, there would be no need for anyone to have a gun, handgun or AK47 especially! Who in the world needs an AK47?!?!? Get the handguns and machine guns and any other kiind of attack weapon off the streets and make them safer for people who actually don’t need a gun to feel better about themselves.
Has Little Bo Peep found you yet?
Smoking is bad. Too much sugar is bad. Guns are real, real bad.
Every day some idiot kills with too easily accessible guns. It is socially unacceptable.
Get another hobbie. No guns unless water squirters or video games.
3 months ago I was at a local market, in a good neighborhood, just past dark, buying dinner. 2 gunmen came in and held me at gunpoint while the clerk turned over the cash.
Its a robber citizens right to bear arms?
Carol said
The second amendment gives us the right to bear MUSKETS, not uzis. Think about it.
Using your logic, the First Amendment applies to quill pen and parchment, or the town square. No radio, TV, internet, or modern press.
Chuck you are not a smart man. If you ban the guns the criminals will be the only ones to have them. Do like other ignorant citizens and get educated before you make rash statements.
Guns don't kill people – people kill people.
Rain does not cause accidents – people driving like idiots cause accidents.
Get a clue people. Be responsible
This is a perfect example of the need for local laws rather than federal laws. Federal laws are one size fits all and clearly the worries of your interviewee in Baltimore should not be applied in the non urban environment.
I personally believe that gun ownership is a right but I also understand that local rules, especially in big cities, may be required to limit where and when one might carry a firearm without a permit.
I should mention that many people are killed with knives but noone is talking about licensing kitchen or dinner knives.
I would like to complain about your use of AK-47s, AR-15s or AR-16s – the so called assault weapons.
When anti-gun promoters use these terms, they do so in order to make the uninformed believe that these are automatic weapons like the machine guns of the movies. This promotes unjustified fears.
Automatic weapons and machine guns have been illegal in the US for an awfully long time. The firearms that one can legally buy in the US are semiautomatic firearms – no more rapid fire than my shotguns I use to shoot skeet and trap.
It would be more responsible of the the media to not fan unjustified fears by clarifying these differences. Your closing comment about AK-47 seeming to indicate that it is a terrible thing to own and just reinforce this unjustified fear.
Hi CNN, this is a reason that many gun owners are mad as hell. Could you do some research on SB-2099 and HR45-Blair Holt Firearm Licensing + 20 Record of sales Act of 2009 and let us know if what we are hearing is correct or just interent garbage.
thanks, Ron
This is somewhat alarming when you consider the political background and beliefs of the current administration. Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.
This bill was introduced on Feb.. 24, 2009, by the Omama staff. BUT . . this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act o f 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all. The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, U.S. Senate You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099. You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.
Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 – U.S.... OpenCongress
Obama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply. Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Ac t of 2009.
Even some gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usuual, the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it
To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & 20 Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information. Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver's License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
Each update – change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 – Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. -They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from
accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs in prison.
If you think this is a joke – go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. You might want to pass the word along also. Any hunters in your family pass this along.
This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense – chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.
This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not..
Search Results – THOMAS (Library of Congress ) <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45
H.R.45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 – U.S. Congress – OpenCongress <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show
H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 ( GovTrack.us ) <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
Whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right to choose.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
There have always been violent crimes. "Violent people" are the problem! Deal with the them not the weapons they use. If guns are band, they will just use a knife, a ball bat, a rock or there bare hands!
– "No, the gun doesnt’t do it by itself, but it has no other purpose than to kill"
Really? I own 7 firearms at this time, and they all get quite regular use. Oddly, not one of them has ever been used in an attempt to harm a human being. The same is true for the vast majority of the legally-owned firearms in the U.S. You appear to have not thought this one through.
– "I am 75 years old and grew up in very rural Southwestern Pennsylvania. I have owned guns for hunting and protection all my life since age 13. I believe in reasonable regulations for gun control. The idea that private citizens should have the right to own assault rifles is absurb. The first part of the Second Amendment referencing defense by state militias as the premise for keeping and bearing arms is clearly not relevant today. We need to find a middle ground. I don’t need stinger missiles to hunt squirrels"
Looks like I spoke too soon. The above comment wins the new award for most ridiculous. You don't know what the term "assault rifle" means, nor do you understand the meaning of the language of the 2nd Amendment (even though it has been well explained) and the nature of the right it protects. Learn first...then talk. Not the other way around.
Obama has surrounded himself with very powerful anti-gun, anti-second ammendment people - that is why gun owners are worried.
What is the point of registrating guns? Would it actually make us safer? Extremely unlikely! Is Canada any safer after having spents hundreds of millions of dollars on registration? (And they are not done spending yet! How many more lives would have been saved if they had improved their roads instead?) The guns were taken away from citizens in England and Australia - huge piles of guns were destroyed - and crime skyrocketed, especially occupied home break-ins. Why not? The criminals know their victims are as defenseless as sheep.
Yes, there are bad guys out there. They don't play nice and they certainly don't play fair. Ask the criminals... THEY would much prefer that their targets were helpless.
'Militia' at the time of the revolution meant any citizen (man) of sound mind and body. In fact, they were required to own, keep, and maintain a working firearm. That firearm could be musket, but in some cases it was a rifle, the "assault weapon" of the day, which had a far greater killing range and accuracy than a smoothbore. Gun evolution had already come a long way since the arms of the 1500s, and certainly the founding fathers would have expected it to continue.
A great many crimes are prevented by the mere appearance of a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen. Often, no shot needs to be fired. Like having a big, ugly dog on a leash - even if the dog never bites anyone, few will bother you!
Most likely, the police can not, and will not, be there at your hour of greatest danger. It is good to have a friend close by your side - a friend named Sam Colt.
– "The second amendment gives us the right to bear MUSKETS, not uzis. Think about it."
The ignorance of comments like that is staggering. Does the 1st Amendment only give you the right to publish writing via quills and hand-operated printing presses?
The constitution was written a long time ago, long before these weapons of mass destruction were developed.
It is the 2nd ammendment. It keeps Americans safe and free. It is criminals who add to the gun problem. Not normal upstanding law abiding Americans.
If you were going to break in a home... would you do it if you knew the home owner had a gun and knew how to use it?
Case closed.
"September 22nd, 2009 12:08 pm ET
I am 75 years old and grew up in very rural Southwestern Pennsylvania. I have owned guns for hunting and protection all my life since age 13. I believe in reasonable regulations for gun control. The idea that private citizens should have the right to own assault rifles is absurb. The first part of the Second Amendment referencing defense by state militias as the premise for keeping and bearing arms is clearly not relevant today. We need to find a middle ground. I don’t need stinger missiles to hunt squirrels"
There are very few citizens who actually own assault rifles. An assault rifle is one that you can switch from automatic to semi-automatic. 99% of civilian owned guns are semi-automatic.
If Gun's kill people, then a spoon made Rosie fat!!
Bottom line is that if you make guns illegal only criminals will have guns.
Actually the Second Amendment CAN be changed, it has happened before. Think of it next time you consume a legal alcoholic beverage.
Does the Second Amendment refer to firearms, or knives and swords? Does it allow the possession of plastic explosives? Nuclear weapons? Pipe bombs? Oh, those are illegal? Well why? For the same reason an AK-47 shoud be illegal, because lawmakers have the proven right to limit types of arms based on the destruction they can cause.
Still criminals don't follow laws, so what's the point? What's the point of anything anymore in the country really? Argue amongst yourselves while Rome continues to burn.
Craig states:
"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 ?"
"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."
Using misinformation to further you argument undermines your credibility. The majority of the United States of America's electorate does not oppose guns, or gun ownership. In fact in some polls up to 80% of Americans believe the Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms.
Please google a GALLUP poll: "Before Recent Shootings, Gun-Control Support was Fading." Even after publicized shootings barely 50% of Americans support stricter gun laws much less bans on guns.
The point is that freedom is not for cowards and Americans may be a great many things, but we are not cowards.
I was just in BC last week hunting elk and learned Canadians still pay the queen (should that be capitalized?) a fee for every wild animal taken by hunters. Her picture was in the customs office. Sooo, I'll take the gift of Freedom from jolly ol' England over your gift any day.
I owe a debt of gratitude to the Revolutionaries who fought off the monarchy and I pay that debt by knowing my rights and defending them. I also repay that debt by teaching my 11-year-old daughter about her rights as an American. We spent Sunday at the range together and she is a crack shot.
So, Craig, I know this great big country a little north of here that looks a whole lot like America but feels a whole lot like Europe that you may enjoy. I hear they are very restrictive about guns, the queen prefers it that way.
Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right – not a law to amend. Therefore, gun ownership is inherit to being a US citizen. With this freedom comes individual responsiblity and accountability – I aggree – guns don't kil – people do...and those folks that abuse their freedom to bear arms (beyond defense to aggression) should lose this right forever.
Our Forefather's preambled the 2nd Amendment with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Any potential advisary to Our great country would think twice before invading a country with a 100 milllion + gun-owning citizens with a common cause to defend their homeland!
This place is rife with idiots and misinformation.
1. We have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from TYRANY...not to hunt Bambi.
2. 'Assault weapons' are machine guns, not semi-automatic rifles. Machine guns are highly regulated. There has only been one case of a legally owned machinegun being used in a crime in this nation's history....and that was by a cop. Just because a rifle is black or doesn't have a wooden stock that doesn't make it an assault weapon.
3. Gun control laws only prevent law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. Criminals don't abide by gun laws. Felons may not own guns. No need for gun laws...it's already illegal for a criminal to posess a gun.
4. Statistically, 99.99% of gun deaths in this nation are the result of a criminal's actions.
5. Gun deaths in this nation, regretfully, are the price of freedom. Freedom is not free.
1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ John Adams
3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
I am 75 years old and grew up in very rural Southwestern Pennsylvania. I have owned guns for hunting and protection all my life since age 13. I believe in reasonable regulations for gun control. The idea that private citizens should have the right to own assault rifles is absurb. The first part of the Second Amendment referencing defense by state militias as the premise for keeping and bearing arms is clearly not relevant today. We need to find a middle ground. I don't need stinger missiles to hunt squirrels
Take up the martial arts. Learn to defend yourself. It may take years, but you will be in better shape (Put off your need to use your Health Care). You might learn to disarm the person with the gun. If a few generations learned over the next 100 years, our society may be different. Until then I guess you guys will just keep shooting up!
I have been around guns all of my life (50+), and recreational gun owners are getting a bad rap for the idiots that are using guns to shoot each other up. Every gun owner I know is a law abiding citizen and loves this country. It is sad that young people are not being taught respect for life, and the moral fabric of the U.S. is deteriorating. This is at the crux of drugs, murders (including abortion), broken families, abuse, and other terrible acts happening every minute. People are the problem, not guns.
I am a citizen, taxpayer, mother of 2, physician, gun-owner and concealed carry permit holder, and sensible gun-rights supporter and a member of the NRA, although they and I do not always agree on points of gun rights activism.
Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun-Seung Hue Cho of the VA Tech massacre is a perfect example. Perhaps if there were a cool headed gun operator in the room his carnage might have been reduced. My ex-husband the commercial airline pilot, with a history of stalking me and making threats, shouldn't own guns, but he has several...That's a very involved story.
People with criminal histories of violence or extremely poor judgment, DUI/DWI and domestic abuse should not be allowed to own guns.
As Police Officer Paul noted, the criminals do not abide by the laws of a civilized society; law abiding citizens do, and we are at a total disadvantage in self defense because of restrictions on the purchase and more importantly the carrying of firearms. It bothers me that I cannot go into Maryland or the District with my firearm- through which I have placed many practice rounds- without breaking the law, so I don't do it. How many people who would rob me, maybe rape me and leave me for dead would think twice about where it is or is not legal to own/carry a firearm? I bet not a one. I will bet that they all might think twice if they thought there was even a slim chance I had my 9mm on my hip.
We need rational, national laws allowing law abiding citizens to own and carry firearms. When the criminals believe that their victims are on a level playing field, the crime numbers will go down. Substance abusers out to rob for drug cash will still commit crimes because the addiction puts them out of any logical thought process, but the rest are mostly looking to get away with anything they can. When they really think they're going to get a fight in return, they will back down.
Granted, in my 42+ years of life I have only ever been "held up" in middle school for whatever cash I had on me and I do not do stupid things like cavorting around in bad neighborhoods after dark- if met by a gun at least I could have a chance at protecting myself and my kids. I have auto insurance, life and health insurance and home-owners insurance- with my thinking brain, some common sense, and my law abiding hands, a gun is just another life insurance policy, there if I need it. A useful tool.
Keep the guns so we can defend ourselves against whatever country trys to invade us when they realize our country is ran by a lot of panzies
Let's suppose all the people on earth suddenly disappeared. Would guns rise up and shoot themselves?
Let's suppose all the guns were taken off the earth. Would people still rise up and kill each other?
Socialist Liberals would have you believe that if you give away all your power, money, and liberties, to them. They will protect you and care for you, we will all be equal. Sounds nice doesn't it. Lenin, Stalin, Putin, Hitler, etc. did not seem very equal to me.
The Conservative believes that it is better that a man takes care of and governs himself and his family and that he has the right to choose. The Conservative wants to be free to inovate and improve this nation. Some have more and some have less. Those who have more help those who have less by employment and Charitable institutions etc.
We are at opposite ends of the debate about freedom. Do we keep it for ourselves or do we give it to others who want to keep it for themselves?
Man has always had to fight to be free, just like we have to fight to keep our guns and finances out of the hands of those who want to redistribute our wealth. I wonder what wealth Obama wants to redistribute? I doubt if it is his. Oh that's right he believes what's yours is his.
Reed wrote, "Quite simply, guns don’t kill people…people kill people. And that is exactly what the problem is."
And you could add to that that hammers don't pound in nails, 'people' pound nails. In both cases, the tool makes it possible to commit the act. I'll pay anyone one hundred dollars for each nail they can pound into hardwood with their hands (but the cost of hand surgery will be yours).
Much easier, by the way, to kill a bunch of people with a gun than a hammer. No, the gun doesnt't do it by itself, but it has no other purpose than to kill, AND it makes it easy. The 'guns don't kill people' anecdote is a silly argument in their favor.
But I don't advocate banning them, just regulating them properly, and increasing penalties for their abuse.
To use a gun in a robbery should be mandatory twenty years. To point and shoot someone, an automatic life sentence.
checks and balances ,people.Our founding fathers realized that the only way from having a democracy go monarchy/ dictator was if the people are able to forceably resist the government's efforts. Now, I'm not saying that this is what anyone is trying to do right now, but it would be the foundation of overturning a constitutional right. Losing that right would eventually lead to losing all other rights. It is neither old or outdated, we enjoy our freedom of the press,speech,the right to gather together,etc. we each enjoy those rights some rights more than others(which is what makes this a great country-yours and my own rights to choice our own paths in life) just as I enjoy my right to have or bare arms.No new laws – we all must choose (use your right to think, but think all different ways) before we all go our own way or path.
Oh and by the way, the individual from Canada that wrote that the world would respect us more. Well, the Unitied States of America- you know us the people that brought back democracy to the world after more than 2000 years of monarchs. If there is a democratic movement any where (truely – anywhere) then it is still here in the Unitied States of America. Where here we still discuss and argue our constitutional rights. Canada spent more time on it's knees(monarch) than we did-don't you dare come in here and presume to tell us what we should or should not do with our rights. Thank you very much!
This article really doesn't even begin to express or consider any of the issues in the gun debate.
It's not about guns causing violence – because they don't. It's about culture, society and people.
The places that have a higher density of people who don't value life & don't respect law will have more gun crimes – even though THOSE places (Baltimore, NY, LA, etc) already have near complete bans on guns.
The places that have hard working law abiding citizens in great numbers will also have MANY guns, even being carried on their person (lawful concealed carry) – and yet their crime rates stay far, far lower than the cities with gun bans.
"It's not the guns, stupid".
Let them keep their guns. Just make ammunition illegal.
Gunhater – ....but handguns and anything bigger than needed to hunt should be taken out of circulation.
Do you realize the most hunting rifle and Much more powerful that handguns or any 'Assualt Weapons' including the dreaded AK-47?
Registration – Most gun owners remember how registration worked in Australia, Great Briton and Canada. First they required registration, then once they had the list, they Banned them.
"CAROL September 22nd, 2009 7:33 am ET
The second amendment gives us the right to bear MUSKETS, not uzis. Think about it."
So the First Amendment only applies to religions in effect at the time? And to acutal speech and the primitive printing presses and pens which existed at the time? Television and radio broadcasts weren't around, so they can be banned or censored, right? How about what you did right there by typing that for an online forum? None of these things existed at the time of the First Amendment.
I own guns and use them to responsibly hunt and target shoot. It’s a shame that some people have so little respect for life that they kill other humans with guns. It’s already illegal for many of them to own guns. (Convicted felons are barred from owning guns.) Enforce the laws we have, lock up the criminals.
If they didn’t have guns they’d kill each other with knives, clubs or even with their cars.
Re: CAROL September 22nd, 2009 7:33 am ET
The second amendment gives us the right to bear MUSKETS, not uzis. Think about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Accepting your statement at face value, then the First Amendment only protects the printed (Freedom of the Press) and the spoken word (Freedom of Speech), not telegraph, not telephone, not radio, not television, nor satellite and internet communications.
Hey CAROL, I just read the second amendment 5 times and I can not find the word "musket" anywhere in there. Remember that a musket was the height of firearm technology back then and the constitution doesn't say anything about what level of firearm technology the US citizen can bear.
A few among us may feel that the citizens don't need assault rifles but remember: we are protected by a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.
Carol,Kiran,and John I DVR your program every morning and want to say great job. As for the issue of Gun Control, I do agree the loss of life due to firearms is an increasing problem. When watching the news you see drug war happenings,drive by shootings,school shootings,gang shootings,and this awful list goes on and on.
I am a long time gun owner who enjoys hunting,trap shooting,and target practicing. I was accidentially hit by a shotgun blast at close range at seven years of age while hunting. This experience has given me the highest respect for firearms and their danger. After this experience I learned that guns don't kill people do.
My question for all these people pushing for gun control would be what will change with a control or a stopping sales of guns? I would be willing to bet that organized crime groups,gun runners, would take care of the supply of firearmsin this country. The end result being no great reduction in crime.
" Be Careful What You Wish For, You Just May Get It."
Thanks
OH yea sure... banning guns will really make them go away and stop them from coming into this country and into the hands of criminals... just like the war on drugs. That's a huge success right there. Clearly it's working and by banning all guns or even just certain types, they will be off the street. LOL
Wake up people, Banning. Doesn't. Work. PERIOD! Educate yourself and if you are a responsible person who wishes to own a firearm, then that is your right, but it all comes down to education and safety.
Everyone always says that gun owners are "whipped into a frenzy by the NRA saying the gov't is coming to take your guns". Which is immediately rebutted by saying that the Democrats have said they're not out to ban all guns.
Gun owners and gun control advocates alike know that there is no way in the world that they could immediately jump directly into a ban of all guns. A move like that would immediately take a huge group of the population and throw them directly behind the gun rights movement. Instead, it's easier to work piece by piece.
For years, the media has demonized "assault rifles". There is no good definition for the term, it just gets applied to any gun that looks evil. I was at the gun shop last week and there was someone commenting that they didn't have a problem banning all of the guns that were hanging in a wall display case "because they didn't see the need for people to have 'assault rifles' ". Well, while this particular case did have some AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles, there were also a number of bolt-action rifles and some shotguns that all had black synthetic stocks. This person's only reasoning that the guns weren't necessary was because the gun was black and looked evil. They were perfectly fine with any gun with a wooden stock "because it looked like a normal gun". So now we have a section of the population that is brain-washed to think this way. They have no issue with banning guns based on looks. So if we pass legislation to ban these, what will be the next item targeted? There will just be another round of demonizing another type of gun until the public is behind it and they can push this through. It's not an immediate grab...just a slow erosion.
Even if you don't want to take bans, let's talk registration. What's to stop the gov't from setting outrageus fees or impossible processes for complying with the registration laws? Tons of people think that registration is a great idea, unless they are the ones going through the process. When you have to spend weeks, months or years going through an approval process. Or you have to spends hundreds or thousands on fees. What's going to be the end result? Fewer people actually willing to put up with it, so possibly fewer guns out there. Although it's more likely you're just making the illegal gun crowd larger than it is now by turning previously law-abiding citizens into criminals for now complying with registration laws.
If there were NO guns in the hands of people, there would be no need for anyone to have a gun, handgun or AK47 especially! Who in the world needs an AK47?!?!? Get the handguns and machine guns and any other kiind of attack weapon off the streets and make them safer for people who actually don't need a gun to feel better about themselves. When our founding fathers made it possible for our ancestors to provide for their families, they didn't have the wackos, who we have presently, in mind. If we tighten the laws on guns then someone willl find a way around them just like always. Our military and hunters who register and take a training course on safety should be able to have defensive weapons but handguns and anything bigger than needed to hunt should be taken out of circulation.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
Carol Costello and Bob Ruff completely mischaracterized a very simple debate. The authors of the Bill of Rights did not randomly assign the order to the Amendments, they are prioritized based on the role they play in keeping us free.
Costello and Ruff lost a great deal of credibility this morning. CNN is failing as member of the "Fourth Estate." This was a simple issue, fundamental to our democracy and CNN failed.
JohnVA
You're right... guns are stolen from law abiding citizens and dealers. But are you aware that most guns on the streets are stolen from our military by gang members that are serving in the military.
Point being, getting rid of guns will stop nothing, wont stop criminals from getting them, wont stop crimes where guns are used....