I read where some wanted some new topics to debate, so here ya go. Tell us your thoughts. Does the government have the right to restrict gun possession? I personally feel there should be stiffer restrictions but we as americans should have the right to bear arms.

I don't know, I guess I have two different opinions on this topic. Ideally, I wouldn't be against a total ban on guns. The problem with that is that there are way too many guns out on the street at this point, and I don't think a total ban would work.

My second opinion is that people should be allowed to own guns, but with severe restrictions. I don't think anyone with felony convictions, or certain misdemeanor convictions, or a history of mental illness should be allowed to own a gun. I think that everyone in a household where a gun is present should be forced to take at least a yearly safety course in order to be allowed to keep their gun. I don't think fully automatic weapons should be legal, with the exception of legitimate collectors and law enforcement personel. I also think that there should be a requirement to have guns kept in a locked gun safe or kept with a trigger guard.

Wow Kat....you have a very interesting & scary history, I can't even imagine! One thing I did notice was that all the crimes committed by your ex-husband involved the use of a gun. I think that again speaks to the availability to them & hence the crimes committed by them.

Since living here in Texas(which I love by the way, it's true about Southern hospitality) I still laugh everytime I walk into a Walmart or grocery store & see the sign telling people "guns aren't allowed" I almost feel like I need to get one if everyone else out there has one but that makes as much sense to me as giving everyone a grenade because someone else might have one.

I

oops...I hit reply before I was done..

In a Country where guns are banned/severly limited I don't feel the need to have a gun because I'm not worried that the other guy might have one. Here in the US there is sooooo many guns that you feel like the odd man out without one.

Jack....I didn't think cars let alone drivers licenses were around when the constitution was written. ha ha.

Marnie, I totally agree, concerning his crimes and gun involvement---at the time I made that huge mistake in my life, I was totally unaware of his history of crime...he was already a felon at that time!!! It was a simple matter of an alias, and he bought weapons, he voted....he worked the system. He is now being supported by the poor state of Texas, where he was extridited to after he served a sentence in Oklahoma.

Sure would like to know what happen to the 3 strikes law....he has struck many, many more times than 3!!!!

While you laugh at the sign on Walmart's door---I kind of cringe when I think that they allow the clerks working there, with little training, to sell the guns! Many of them extremely young.

Kat

Hi,

For me, gun ownership is a complex issue involving liberty and the right to self-defense.

Personally, I choose to have the liberty to engage in self-defense against predatory criminals by owning a gun.

Other people may choose to do as they wish.

Oh, one more thing....

Expecting a criminal to obey gun-control laws, when the definition of a criminal is someone who breaks laws, is ludicrous.

It sounds like America is a much more violent country than Canada is. It sounds like you have many more violent predators. I think I would want to own a gun, too, if I lived in the United States.

It sounds like America is a much more violent country than Canada is. It sounds like you have many more violent predators. I think I would want to own a gun, too, if I lived in the United States.

Oh, I don't know if the USA is more or less violent than Canada.

I'd have to look up the statistics on violent crimes before I made any assumptions.

It sounds like America is a much more violent country than Canada is. It sounds like you have many more violent predators. I think I would want to own a gun, too, if I lived in the United States.

A man I worked with was from Canada, grew up there spent most of his adult life in Quebec and British Columbia. I asked him once why there seemed to be less crime in Canada (from my American viewpoint) than the US. He told me that while down here cops have to worry about issues of race, politics and related crap.

The police in Canada don't really have to worry all that much. If a 'gang' like the crips, bloods, mexican mafia, arayn nation, etc. were to try to be as violent and brazen as they are here in the US they would be smacked down hard by the authorities. Not so here in the US.

Dunno if it is true or not as I have never lived in Canada but it seemed to make sense to me.

If the right to Bear arms means I can go sleevless then I'm all for it, If the right to Bear arms means a individual has the right to have the arms of a Bear transplanted on their body then although I would'nt do it myself I still think it should be a right of every citizen.

Derrick in response to your earlier post, the bigger the gun the smaller the Gun, if you know what I mean.

Cheers

TommyO

guns dont kill people. guns dont rob people. people do.

guns dont kill people. guns dont rob people. people do.

That is such a LAME LAME LAME arguement!!!!! What does that mean, the weapon itself isn't what shot a hole in someone? I guess it should be permitted to let people have every type of weapon they choose and just hope there aren't any accidents, or curious children, or temporarily angry moments that get out of hand, or hateful people and I guess the this whole war based on "weapons of mass destruction" really is even more absurd than people think since it turns out the weapons aren't what kill people anyway! ( or at least according to the theory above)

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. So, as one clever person said, charge $5,000. a bullet. This will put an end to stray bullets killing people by mistake. At $5,000. a pop, you better be sure that you really want to fire that gun at something you really want to hit, no goofing around.:rolleyes

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. So, as one clever person said, charge $5,000. a bullet. This will put an end to stray bullets killing people by mistake. At $5,000. a pop, you better be sure that you really want to fire that gun at something you really want to hit, no goofing around.:rolleyes

Chris Rock, one of his HBO specials I think.

Charging 5Gs per bullet isn't a bad idea.....

I think that the issues here are rather complex, and there are valid points on both sides of the arguement.

People wish to have security against criminal aggression, whether the aggression comes from an individual, organization or government run amok.

The differences of opinion come from the fact that some people wish to have the right to defend themselves, and other people want the government to provide them with defense.

My personal viewpoint is that, ultimately, the government cannot provide me with effective defense, unless they confine my movements to a fortified, guarded position, or provide me with an armed and armoured escort.

Since this is not practical nor desirable to me, I choose the right to self-defense, knowing that even in a large city, the response time for the authorities who woud presumably defend me against criminal agression is measured in minutes, during which time an aggressor would certainly have sufficient time to do me tremendous physical harm.

Moreover, I am a strict constructionist in my view of the Constitution, and as such, I can only interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment as being an absolute right of the people, the same as any other expressed right of the people as expressed in the rest of that document.