American Morning

Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
October 1st, 2009
03:10 PM ET

We Listen – Your comments 10/01/2009

Editor's Note: The majority of Thursday’s American Morning audience supported more gun control measures. Those opposed argued that “most, if not all, gun violence is perpetrated with illegal guns.”

  • Ken: As a society. we should talk about health care rights before we talk about gun rights.
  • Bernadette: Wayne LaPierre and his powerful Gun Lobby are dangerous to my life and the life of my grandchildren. The U.S. needs and must have better protection against guns. It is about time for people to realize that guns with bullets kill. We are a very backward thinking society to believe that they are a means of protection.
  • Linda: No one talks about the right to bear arms in the context of an early America where it really was wild–American Indians, wild animals, the need to kill for food, and I believe a historical context of bearing arms to defend against a tyrannical Great Britain which we were defeating in the Revolution. We are in the 21st century with guns more powerful than any early American could EVER imagine. Why do gun rights advocates need semi-automatic weapons, yet they will fight for their right to have them? Why do they need a loaded weapon at a Presidential event with our history of gun violence against Presidents and prominent figures? Last, I believe states and municipalities should have the right to reduce gun violence in their towns just like they did in our American west. Why does the Right argue states rights for everything but this?
  • Ray: Please explain to viewer what the words, 'A well regulated militia' mean, and why it is always ignored in the understanding of the Second Amendment. Reading the one sentence Amendment it refers only to members of militia like the national guard having the right to keep and bear arms. It does not refer to Joe Bloggs keeping a gun for 'protection of the state' unless he was a member of a 'well regulated militia'. All to often only the last part of the Amendment is ever quoted destroying its total meaning. It was written at a time in history when all Americans had to muster against an enemy and keep arms in their farm houses etc. to protect land (state) against invasive military action.
  • Wes: Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. Most, if not all, gun violence is perpetrated with illegal guns. Why can't we focus on enforcing the laws already on the books and crack down on ILLEGAL guns and the people that deal in that. Self defense is a God (replace with your deity) given right, some would say obligation. What the media often doesn't do is emphasize that the gun used in the story is illegal, painting the entire gun owning community with a broad brush as being evil, but I'm the guy next door, law abiding and patriotic. If we lose the second amendment I expect the first will not be far behind. Semper sic tyrannis.

Who should be in charge of gun control – states or the federal government? How do you feel about the viewer’s statement that “most gun violence is perpetrated with illegal guns”?

Filed under: We Listen
soundoff (15 Responses)
  1. Ganry90

    It looked like a building society home page. ,

    October 23, 2009 at 7:06 am |
  2. John73

    I'm sure it's a time-saver for you, but I have to say I'm not real fond of the computerized voice. ,

    October 22, 2009 at 8:15 am |
  3. Kelly Chang

    I am against weapons. Legal or illegal. But when someone kills another living being with an illegally owned weapon, they should forfeit all rights and go straight to death row. There is a reason that person got their hands on that weapon without properly acquiring it, mainly to threaten, hurt or kill something with it. So if you do the crime, do the time, no questions asked. On this note, did mr. Cheney loose his hunting license and the privilidge to have a weapon after he 'accidentally' shot someone in the face? He obviously doesn't have a clue as to how dangerous a weapon can be and should not be allowed to have a weapon. He forfeited that right.

    October 5, 2009 at 8:41 am |
  4. Martyn Bignell

    Please could anyone confirm the following, with the public health care option being discarded is it now true that part of the preamble of the constitution is to be re-written?
    That is instead of "we the people for the people" it will now read, "we the senate for the lobbyist".

    In all my life I have now witnessed anything more un-democratic and underhand, 380 million dollars spent by health care insurance and drug companies in getting this defeated. Well to all involved with insurance within the USA, you will not get one cent from me; I have found alternatives to all of you and that is how I will cover my family.

    Further to this, once I have finalized these business arrangements I will go all out to assist as many people as I can in obtaining the same alternative; this will be my first goal, my secondary will be to financially hurt as many U.S. based health companies as I can. I have no doubts that all of you are now sleeping much better, frankly with 3,000 people dying each month due to inadequate health care and 46 million without cover, I could never sleep; however, that sums all of you up.

    Finally and the stark reality of all this is that democracy died with this as well, whether you voted for the current administration or not, does not matter. The facts are that the Democrats won with a manifesto for change, Q.E.D. despite what some insurance companies and Senators scared of losing their seats said; the majority wanted this change, therefore all of you need to take a long hard look at yourselves and should also hang your heads in shame. You all disgust me.

    Martyn Bignell, Fort Lauderdale

    October 3, 2009 at 9:50 am |
  5. SteveG

    While my sympathy goes out to the gentlemen in jail in Japan for trying to get his kids back, my question is why is our media so quick to report about when Americans get arrested in other countries for violating their laws but you are mum and absent when our rights are violated by OUR courts?

    How can a prosecutor alter evidence and a judge perjure himself to suppress a not guilty verdict in southern Indiana and our media cares not?

    Our Constitutional rights are violated by our courts and you ignore it, however, if someone goes to another country and violates their laws your all over it. WHY?

    October 2, 2009 at 9:04 am |
  6. paul huylebroeck

    re: carol costello's multi party story i would like to announce for u.s. presidency as the leading candidate and as of now the only member of the new NOBODY'S BOY PARTY. my platform would eliminate PACS, LOBBYING AND SPECIAL INTEREST DONATIONS. all campaigning would be limited to taxpayer paid tv and newspaper ads. i would make it a crime to be IN THE POCKETS OF BIG BUSINESS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS. if gauranteed this new fair playing field, i will voluntarily return from my self imposed 40 year exile in CANADA where i walk the streets at night unarmed and have never paid for great healthcare and currently receive $1000 a month to supplement my low pension income. my platform would be to make america more like canada where nobody falls through the cracks

    October 2, 2009 at 7:19 am |
  7. Jphn Shields, Mayor, Village of Nyack, NY

    We absolutely need a 3rd Party. I have been a life long Democrat, but have now registered as an independent voter.

    The two parties have reached the point in which personal and party position have trumpted addressing the issues that face this country.

    The more of us who withdraw from a political party; the more they will be forced to listen to our voices.

    John Shields, Mayor, Village of Nyack, NY

    October 2, 2009 at 6:45 am |
  8. Mike Perkins

    YES...It is time for a third party. I am not for it being the communist party. I would like to see it be formed by a half dozen of the most conservative democrats and a half dozen of the most liberal republicans that are already in office. The way it is now the republicans take us way to far to the left so then we elect a democrate that takes us way to far right. We balance it by electing a president form the opposite party every 4 to 8 yrs.

    October 2, 2009 at 6:42 am |
  9. moby49

    Yes, the American people are ready for real change!! The healthcare "reform" debacle is the perfect proof of the need for change. It is obvious neither major party is fit to govern us anymore.

    I never thought I would say that. But I am so sick of Congress only responding to the demands of corporations, unions and lobbyists that it is time for them all to go and some other party to arise that listens to the electorate.

    I wish there was a real choice and I had someone to vote for!!

    One ticked off American!!!

    October 2, 2009 at 6:36 am |
  10. Matt, Washington DC

    The way things have been going the past ten years I would vote for a Federalist or Whig... if they had the best interest of Americans in mind.

    October 2, 2009 at 6:33 am |
  11. Maggie

    The reason everyone likes it when John wears a tie is because you are the last morning news show left, that is a real news show! Smart anchors, professional, and reporting the news. The Today Show and GMA are too celebrity focused, and the anchors themselves act like celebs, which is a turn off in itself. Also, they talk about random stories, and don't focus on what is happening currently, like real news. When I wake up in the morning and drink my coffee, I want to hear about what is going on in the world right now, from smart, attractive professional people, and then go to work. That's it. Then I am updated. This is why I love American Morning. There is no froo froo, just the news.

    October 1, 2009 at 10:19 pm |
  12. katy

    Gun control, as in a total ban, is #1, against the Constitution and #2 , it does not work. Criminals do not legally buy and register their guns. Every place in this country as well as overseas that have gun bans..have increased crime. Criminals know that law abiding citizens will follow the law, making them an easy target. Also the argument that "it will get guns off the street" is mute...drugs are not sold in stores yet there is an abundance of meth etc.. available to those that want it.

    October 1, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
  13. Matt

    We focus so much on guns "killing people". What about alcohol, cigarettes, or say sports or outdoor recreation like four wheelers. More Americans die from anyone of those items than guns. When someone has to go to the hospital for lung cancer because the wanna smoke their whole life it affects me cause I have to pay higher health insurance costs. Law abiding citizens who own guns do not affect me in any way. A drug dealer on a city block who owns a gun is a problem, that I agree. Do you really believe though that he will give up his right to own a gun. If this is the way America wants to be thought, if everyone wants to live in a perfect world where no one gets hurt and we can all live happily together then how about we start taking away other rights first. Namely alcohol. How many innocent people are killed everyday because of a drunk driver. How many people die everyday because of cigarettes. How many people die every day because of automobile accidents. Lets just impose our judgements on everyone. If you think its bad or wrong than nobody should be able to do it. Thats what its coming to anyway in this country. Whatever happened to you live your life and I'll live mine. I think I am smart enough to figure out what is good and bad for me.

    October 1, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  14. Dennis

    Technically, most gun violence is performed by military action and drug lords. I don't see anyone raising an arguement against all military action–at least not anyone who has been around since 9-11-01. And, the drug lords would find a way to get guns no matter what action the US took on a national level to control guns. Those who want guns for illegal purposes will always find them. So, if gun control won't help against gun violence, and adding more gun control neccessarily limits our Constitutional freedom–our RIGHT to bear arms, then I'm not for it. It doesn't make sense to anyone who enjoys freedom–it only makes sense to those who would have us live in a police state. Police states tend to lead to revolutions with or without gun control laws.

    October 1, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  15. Joel Chaney

    I have a simple question about amendments. If the 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.", note the use of people meaning everyone.
    Then how come in the 2nd amendment, "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.", people is not the same people as in the 1st?
    This is the Constitution of the United States and if you want to take away my 2nd amendment rights then what is gonna stop someone else taking away rights given by Amendments 19, 4 and 1?
    These rights were created for a reason!

    October 1, 2009 at 3:25 pm |