I don't own a gun and never will but I do support the the right to have a gun if one so chooses.

Today more than ever.

I'm a great believer in gun control. I always lean on something before I shoot!

We need the gun constitution, because if they took guns away from everyone legally, then the people with Illegal guns(which will always be there like drugs) would have the power and they would know it, and could rob anyone they felt like robbing.

People are taking gun control to an extreme measure, like its all or nothing. That's not how i look at this issue. I think there should be serious restrictions. The process of aquiring a gun should be a lengthy one consisting of several background checks and a long waiting period. Obviously gun control will not stop all gun violence, but it will make it that much harder for criminals and TEENAGERS to be armed saving at least a few lives in the process.

Millions of gun toting rednecks like ME make things safer for all of us. You're welcome. -Cpl. numbah, USMC (Semper Fi)

Superficially this may seem to be an apostasy to my conservative convictions- yet I suggest those of you who so assiduous and vituperatively reject the liberal position evaluate the substance of this discussion. Conservatives continually argue that liberals read into the constitution a preexisting moral code that limits the people's intrusion on personal liberty which is in essence license not the former. In this lexicon the constitution becomes an ends in and of itself and jurists become Supreme-Legislaters. If they were true to their philosophy however they would argue for the second amendment right to possess and own a bazooka, RPG launchers and the like but they don't. Conservatives however promote the concept that the constitution is a means by which we the people can regulate ourselves and determine the future of our nation. That the final arbiture is the people themselves not the supreme court. Then why do so many conservatives point to the second amendment and suggest that it povides absolute safe haven for the ownership of assault weapons? That is absolutely asinine. The control of guns is left to the people! 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. The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not preclude any particular arm from being excluded nor does it preclude the people from excluding all arms if they so choose. Yes there is a substantive right to bear arms but the people can determine what arms that can be possessed. So is gun control constitutional? Of course! Now the more important question is is it necessary? Are the people better served limiting arms to the general public or allowing for certain arms to be legally possessed? All studies currently seem to support the latter. States with the highest gun violence are actually the ones with the more strict gun control laws. John Lott from Chicago University has done very detailed studies on the right to carry laws and has found undoubtably that in those states where citizens can legally carry concealed weapons with a license the crime rate has actually dropped dramatically. Utilizing this data the people therefore can determine whether they want legislatures to pass laws that reflect their will. They also can buy into the notion that restricting gun use on certain weapons is beneficial to society. Yet most importantly the power rests with the people not the constitution nor the self appointed Kings of the Judiciary.

Of course it's constitutional. I demand gun control to be a necessity in today's society. Too many of the wrong people own guns, that's why we need more tougher laws passed. That way the more laws we pass, the more tougher it is for anybody to own a firearm. ... Why do we need firearms anyway? Can't we just use squirt guns like people do in Florida?

Gun control laws work only when you have people who are willing to obey laws, and law abiding gun owners are not the problem. Certain laws such as registration and background checks are just good common sense but the trend for the last 30 years has been aimed at the wrong group of people. Depending on who you talk to, the shooters at Columbine broke anywhere from 28 to 32 current gun control laws. Does anybody really believe that an additional half dozen laws would have made any difference?

my gun permit is the second amendment to the constitution. if you want to take my guns away or infringe on my right to bear arms, petition the government and amend the bill of rights. until then, keep your filthy hands away from my guns.

There has been plenty of debate on the constitutionality of gun ownership, so let me not even address that part of the question. Regarding gun control in today's society, as I've stated elsewhere, the are plenty of laws on the books relating to gun control (background checks, registration, purchase permits, wait periods, etc.), so the answer is not to run around enacting more laws, but rather, to enforce the laws already on the books. If the judiciary does not support the law enforcement community, it's pointless to enact any laws regarding firearms. Criminals who use a gun in the commission of a felony should get an automatic, unappealable sentence, period. Never mind plea bargaining for this or that - use a gun, do some jail time. That's such a simple concept that even stupid criminals can understand it. Look at this as a criminal control problem rather than a gun control problem.

no

Absolutely. With an official law enforcement squad, common citizens need not have lethal weapons of their own. Take all of the guns away by force, and what are the criminals going to use then, huh? Murders would become a crime of the past. Sure, a stun weapon for those without a criminal record is alright, but mainly, the common citizen does not need a weapon of their own. Take the guns away and you tip the balance of power even further into the good guys!

Thanks to the National Rifle Association, all the states are busily legalizing concealed weapons. We really need gun control; it would help put an end to murders, snipers, and improve today's society. Wesley Clark's message: You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!

Of course gun control is necessary--of course, my idea of gun control is a little different, though. Most crimes committed with guns seem to be with the use of an ILLEGAL gun, or an illegally obtained one (stolen). That DEFINATELY needs to be controlled. (PS. The disappearance of guns in our world CAN NOT stop murders, as much as it would be nice to think so, I wish it were so easy. Long before guns, people got stabbed, beaten to death, pushed out of windows, choked, burned to death, poisoned, etc., and it still happens today. What happens when you get rid of guns, then swords, and poison? Fishing line can be used to strangle someone. Pencils, though more difficult, can still stab people. Cars can still run people over. How do we get rid of everything that can kill someone? If someone is crazy enough to want to kill someone, they'll be crazy enough to find a way.)

Great. So criminals can have guns, but civilians cant?

The right to bear arms is constitutional. However, there's no right to bear assualt weapons and own 50 guns per person. Also, the constitution says that gun owners have the right to form a militia, which I think is the ticket to gun safety. Gun owners should have to join a militia i.e. the National Guard or a hunting club or at least go to some sort of gun school in order to learn proper gun use and storage. Of course, there will always be criminals who circumvent the laws, but I would feel better if most law-abiding gun owners had to participate in training courses or in a 'militia.' I'm less afraid of some crack-addicted gangster shooting me than some macho gun nut who has too much to drink and does something stupid.

It shocks me to know that people actually believe that gun control would reduce crimes. Liberals, get it through your heads, you cannot take away our guns. Simple as that. Its unconstitutional.

No, but morals and discipline are.

No. It is a fundemental right in this country for individuals to protect themselves from government tyranny. The government works for us, not we for them. If we become stripped of the right to defend against the possibility of a government takeover of ALL our rights, we will fare about we well as the Jews in Nazi Germany.

I believe in the right to bear arms and protect one's family and property, but let's be realistic here. How many 9 mm Uzi's have ever been used for that purpose? How many have been used in violent gang warfare? When the framers of the Constitution wrote in the right to bear arms, they had no idea what kind of guns we would have in this century. Back then guns were wildly inaccurate and took several minutes to reload. What does any normal citizen need with a fully automatic sub-machine gun anyway?

I'm not too sure that I understand TheFreak's argument. She is usually articulate, but I must say that I agree with PBeavr's assessment of her comment. Why do you distinguish between a lighter-skinned and a darker-skinned person? I've always been torn between this issue. On one hand, the Constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. On the other hand, however, when you compare the number of deaths resulting from handguns in this country to those countries that have outlawed guns entirely, the number of deaths are shockingly high. What many fail to realize, however, is that there are dozens and dozens of gun laws in the books right now. Many gun crimes are commited with guns that are illegal. Sure, we could have mandatory liscensing, but the only people who are going to show up to get those liscenses are law-abiding gunowners. Criminals are always going to be able to find guns. In a country has large as ours, it is impossible to prevent this. Certainly every death is tragic. When you think of how many children have been killed accidentally by handguns or how many children have died in school shootings, it brings tears to your eyes. However, what is the solution? Banning all guns? Trampling on the Constitution? How exactly do you believe that it is possible to get these guns? Should the President send the National Guard and the military into every single home in this country to check for guns and confiscate them from law-abiding citizens. First of all, we do not have the manpower to do this. Secondly, you'll only be taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. Criminals can and will find ways to get guns that they need. Again, I remind you that hundreds of gun crimes are commited using guns that have been declared illegal. The answer is simple: crack down on illegal guns on our streets. Crack down on illegal ammunition (armor-piercing bullets, etc). DO NOT crack down on law-abiding citizens. If you take their protection away, you will only make them more vulnerable to attacks by criminals who have illegally acquired guns easily. So, in the final analysis, after nearly a year of not being able to make up my mind, I've discovered my true position on this issue. We must crack down on the manufacturing and distribution of illegal weapons and require liscensing for the purchase of all handguns. This way, once we've halted the distribution of illegal weapons and confiscated them from those who own them, we can determine if a criminal does get ahold of a handgun who gave it to him through the liscensing system. I support a liscensing system. However, I am absolutely opposed to denying law-abiding citizens the right to own guns, and if necessary, protect themselves from violent criminals. Less guns for violent criminals may actually discourage people from buying guns and may prevent tragic accidents.

I've heard all the arguments many times, and I stopped listening to them long ago. You could say all the same nonsense about automobiles. While you take them away from all the bad owners, get rid of traffic laws, speed limits, and violation fines. It's ridiculous. A perfect world would be a world with no guns, but unortunately, that's not going to happen. I apologize to those who sport-shoot, I enjoy it myself on occasion, because there are thousands of idiots out there who are ruining it for you. We need stricter gun control laws, especially in today's society, when people are all so paranoid. I'd hate to have to have a gun crackdown, but I don't think I'd hate that nearly as much as having a bunch of dead darker-skinneed kids on my conscience.

Obviously, it isn't constitutional to take away guns. But it is certainly legal to enforce strict laws against crimes committed with guns.