Posted on 12/26/2007 10:10:53 AM PST by neverdem
People in the United States are almost evenly split between those who want tighter firearm legislation and those who believe this is unnecessary, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 42 per cent of respondents believe their country needs stricter gun control laws, while 44 per cent disagree.
The U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right "to keep and bear arms." Some American states have enacted their own gun control regulations, independent of existing federal legislation.
Earlier this month, eight people died inside a Nebraska shopping mall when 19-year-old Robert Hawkins fired over 30 rounds of ammunition. Hawkins later killed himself.
In April, Cho Seung-hui killed 32 people—fellow students and teachers—at the Virginia Tech University campus in two separate incidents, before turning his gun on himself. The shooting is the deadliest of its kind in American history and revived a debate on whether the country should introduce new legislation on gun control. In December 2005, Virginia judge Paul Barnett stated that Cho presented "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
On Dec. 20, the U.S. Congress approved legislation aimed at keeping guns away from mentally ill persons. The bill, which has yet to be signed into law by U.S. president George W. Bush, would demand background checks for gun buyers in order to determine whether their mental health status is clear. Democratic New York congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy—a chief sponsor of the bill—saluted the successful vote, saying, "Together, we have crafted a bill that will prevent gun violence, but maintain the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."
Download PDF of this (Rasmussen) article
Notice how Angus Reid ignored Jeanne Assam in Colorado.
No armed government with unarmed populace. Live free or die. I am keeping my gun.
Loons.
I think only the mentally fit should be able to enjoy First Amendment rights (sarc). I wonder how the American people would respond to a pollster who asked that kind of question.
I'm sure that was just an inadvertent oversight. </sarcasm>
The author of this article failed to note the complete prohibition of guns on the VT campus, which is the end-popint of “stricter laws” and the fact the massacre still happened. Furthermore, the article places the two positions between “more laws are needed” and “more laws aren’t needed” without allowing the possibility that “too many laws are present and should be repealed.” For example, the prohibition at VT that allowed the shooter to rack up such a high death toll without opposition or resistance.
It isn't up for debate or compromise. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right because the government grants it - instead, the government is only legitimate because it recognizes the right. Push enough gun control and the effort will spawn a civil war.
The first question is a setup:
1. How closely have you followed recent news stories about shootings in Colorado?
42 to 44 percent, but which way is it moving?
I noticed
I did notice that. Every year hundreds of home invasions, robberies, etc. are foiled when the intended victim is able to defend himself with a firearm.
This is never mentioned in these gun control pieces.
I'll be keeping my guns. And if Hillary gets elected, we'll be needing them more than ever.
Where I live they don’t have any like free gun zones; I know because i’ve had to go to the gun store and pay for one, well I’d have to pay if they would acutallyy wiiat on me; the basturds always through me out. I dunno, it’s like they won’t sell you a gun if you had a few drinks, you know. I evne volonteered to do the wait thing till they todl me it was three days which I pointed out was why i’d come in with the bottle in a bag, I mean, you don’t expect I gotta sit at hte store for 3 damned days with nothing to dow fro crise sake, and then what, they throwed me out.
So where are those free gun zones anyway?
There aren’t a whole lot of things I view as political absolutes or imperatives; the second amendment is one of them. My message to the libs on this one is simple: I’m willing to die trying to defend the amendment; are you willing to die trying to take it away from me?
Out of curiously I asked the men how come they are not concealing their guns per our state laws.
The man came right out and said would you rather me have it handy or have to take the time to reach down and have to retrieve it if some nut case decides to go on a rampage.
Mmmm rather you had it handy.
So I guess in my dream I didnt realize the law changed.
Have no clue where that was in my mind that I had to dream about it...btw could not find one thing I needed to buy and I left in an RX 7 (have no clue about that either as I have driven a van for the last 25yrs).
dimocRATS also have pollsters and they know how to read the results, thus they have dropped their "gun control" mantra in all but the most liberal cities/states. If the 'RATS thought they'd win on that issue, then they would surely run on it.
Just like raising taxes, and other socialist agenda items, they are pretty much silent on those issues UNTIL they get elected.
“We have no clear mental health data on Applicant Y, therefore we must deny his/her request for a gun permit.”
It will go there, and it will go much farther.
RIGHT to keep and bear arms...
I’m not divided about it.
And I don’t give a rats ass what the other half thinks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.