I followed the link to the article, took the poll, looked at the results, and that's when fox news as the source was indicative of slant of the readers. It's Fox News, lol I voted yes. Why? Because
all it mentioned was gun control, not doing away with guns. No one get there panties in a bunch (fellas?) Assault type rifles should not be in the hands of private citizens.
Frank E. Vincent - 11 years ago
Why the 2nd Amendment?
Have YOU asked yourself why we are the benefactors of the Second Amendment? Do you come the conclusion that it was meant to allow Americans the right to "keep and bear arms"? Yes,--- that's the conclusion but NOT the reason. The 1st Amendment not only concerns the freedom of religion and speech but that is also the conclusion. The reason was to restrict any congressional actions against our rights: As it is written; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 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." Okay, how about the 2nd amendment; why was it so important that it was listed before all the remaining amendments? Because it was the hammer given to the people, if necessary, to protect us from a tyrannical power structure by those who may decide the Constitution is nothing more then a document consisting of twenty six plus one articles that may be disregarded if it conflicts with government's control. Okay now take a real look at 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." It is clear, those rights are given to the people to assure the security of a Free State. It gives the people the means to form a militia in order at to protect all of our Constitutional rights. Not the enacted government enforcement, but the people. (A militia is an irregular army comprised of citizens) "I ask Sir, what is the MILITIA? It is the WHOLE people. To disarm the PEOPLE is the best and most effectual way to ENSLAVE them." -George Mason
Today we have a large faction of Americans who think America is above government control and empowerment, because our elected official have sworn to protect us from becoming a sovereign power structure. Really? We have officials in our elected government who have disregarded the Constitution and stated it is only a piece of history that should be considered no more then a "living document" that requires up to day legislative changes.
This country was founded on our rights of freedom, but we have those who are willing to give it up because they believe our founding fathers were inept and couldn't imagine the technology of today. Yet, through the last two hundred plus years our countrymen and women have fought and died for our constitutional rights, because they could envision the threats of servitude and autocracy. Our founding fathers looked forward for us, the benefactors, as they penned the Constitution.
Frank E. Vincent
ERichardson - 11 years ago
This is not about ban on guns or gun control, it is about our Constitutional Rights, another example Ist Amendment Right: Sotomayor & Fed Judges will Force Christians to Act Against their faith. Abortion Law, Abortion inducing drugs, Sterilization, Full Term Abortions, for a man that does not qualify under Eligibilty for Presidential Office, not a Birther, thats a conversation stopper. Name 1 person that voted for Birth Name Sheikh Kahlid Obama or Barry Soetoro, 1 Foreigner Mombosa Kenya 2. Indonesia Naturalized with mother, then Legally Adopted & Legal Name Change. ILL Senator wrote the Abortion law for Kenya Constitution also has Sen Kobama school on the Lou Tribe land, Kenya. Without our Constitution, We The People have No Rights. Joe Biden Swearing in Ceromony Senator Heidi Heikamps, cross your legs, your gonna be frisked! 3rd term for Barry with Hugo Chavis calibrated 1 vote machines get ready for 20 yrs of transforming USA. Past time to Vet for Eligibility Requirement ? Impeach, Nixon was atleast USA Naturalborn, Clinton was lucky. 4 mil for Hawaii Christmas!
Molly - 11 years ago
Just a thought, how many children has been murdered after being beaten and raped as compared with guns shooting children? India with the rape another death....Not guns, but other methods.
BIJ - 11 years ago
I am horrified that the vast majority of posters for this poll do not support more Gun control. I also note that comment is made concerning States that do having stricter controls have no noticeable lessening in gun related crimes. I strongly suspect that until the hallowed ground of the 2nd amendment is looked at with a view to making it more realistic in terms of society in the 21st century that nothing meaningful will be accomplished and these appalling tragedies of mass shootings will continue to occur in the USA. The Gun lobby's claims that teachers should go around armed and that if this was the case in Conn the children would have been saved is so tragically laughable that most sane people despair that it has any traction for a large proportion of the population. I come from a country, England where we have strict gun control. Yes we have certainly had mass shootings but they are very rare and annual gun related killings remain under 20 deaths while I understand in the USA the annual figure is around 12,000. Finally before anyone says the USA has a much larger population, which is true, 300 mio in the USA to around 60 mio in the UK the death figures are still startlingly high in the former. I am enormously fond of the USA and spent many happy years working in the country but its gun laws are a complete travesty. The case is exemplified by TV stations like Nat Geo showing programs about half- mad Preppers all going around armed to the teeth in the belief that when a global cataclysm occurs they and their family will be safe.
ERichardson - 11 years ago
Free & Fair Elections would be nice. Vetting a nominee for Presidential office would be nice. USA Naturalborn would be nice. SEIU private maltia will carry guns. Where did USA go 2008? 20112? & 3rd term expected. Food for Thought!
dyevmltajnu - 11 years ago
NO!! IF one's intent is to kill they will find what ever is necessary to get the job DONE! It is not
the instrument so much as it is the one operating it!
IF you take away the guns --then what??--all the hammers..ballbats..knives...cut off people 's arms & hands(?)...sticks.... stones.....vehicles.....glass bottles...blunt pieces of metal....???????
YOU NAME IT-----------SOOOOO, ........I CONCLUDE: It is NOT the instrument, but the evil intent within one's OWN heart that causes these premature deaths!
tkret - 11 years ago
World (and domestic) history has shown that banning certain types of weapons does not deter someone who wants to kill others. The shootings at Columbine High School occurred during the last time automatic weapons were banned. In cases such as this, the expression "Where there is a will, there is a way" is certainly applicable to this.
England, France and numerous other countries have also experienced shootings when guns were banned. As a matter of fact, the Police in England now carry weapons and wear bullet proof vests, even though guns are banned there.
Banning guns will only make the black market thrive, same as during prohibition.
Don't ban guns, fix the problem. I've posted this before, and feel it necessary to say it again, banning any type of gun or weapon, is usually a knee jerk reaction, and tantamount to putting a band aid on a broken arm.
Jean Faulkner - 11 years ago
Lets use some common sense. Private citizens do not need assault guns and ammo. The problems are the wackos who own all these guns and ammo.
I challenge Kaul, Feinstein, and others to read this research. Chicago has strict gun laws, as does Washington D.C, yet they have the highest violence in this nation.
As our nation continues to reel over the horrible tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, we are faced with how do we control such maniacs in a free society. There are some who would pounce all over guns and gun control, and would love to eradicate the 2nd Amendment, which would emasculate the US Constitution. They claim that there exists a positive correlation between gun control and violent crimes, which is a fool's errand. Look at the violent crime rate in our nation's capital. D.C. happens to have one of the highest crime rates in the nation, yet what happened to less guns equals less violent crime. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect all citizens from the two worst enemies in this nation; criminals and government. In a study made by Harvard University, we find some extraordinary facts concerning gun ownership. I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more
PapaBC - 11 years ago
If I have a Gun(s) or not is none of the Governments business.
Do if they do then what will you do with thesew words?
Amendment II
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.
grd - 11 years ago
”If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
~The Dalai Lama
Selia - 11 years ago
Those few who answered "yes" really need to do some reading on the issue.
wilson627 - 11 years ago
Based on that rational, we should get rid of underground subways because people sometimes push others into the path of oncoming trains. Also, we should ban baseball bats, ropes, knives, cars and many other potential weapons!
Al - 11 years ago
We already have hundreds of laws regarding guns and gun control at the state and federal level. None of those laws could have, or did do, anything for any of the victims. Bad and deranged people will always find ways to do bad and deranged things. All this talk of more laws has done is cause more people to go out and buy the weapons they are threatening to ban, now more people have them than before.
caskinner - 11 years ago
The problem is not guns. The problem is the wackos and the criminals that get guns.
I followed the link to the article, took the poll, looked at the results, and that's when fox news as the source was indicative of slant of the readers. It's Fox News, lol I voted yes. Why? Because
all it mentioned was gun control, not doing away with guns. No one get there panties in a bunch (fellas?) Assault type rifles should not be in the hands of private citizens.
Why the 2nd Amendment?
Have YOU asked yourself why we are the benefactors of the Second Amendment? Do you come the conclusion that it was meant to allow Americans the right to "keep and bear arms"? Yes,--- that's the conclusion but NOT the reason. The 1st Amendment not only concerns the freedom of religion and speech but that is also the conclusion. The reason was to restrict any congressional actions against our rights: As it is written; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 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." Okay, how about the 2nd amendment; why was it so important that it was listed before all the remaining amendments? Because it was the hammer given to the people, if necessary, to protect us from a tyrannical power structure by those who may decide the Constitution is nothing more then a document consisting of twenty six plus one articles that may be disregarded if it conflicts with government's control. Okay now take a real look at 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." It is clear, those rights are given to the people to assure the security of a Free State. It gives the people the means to form a militia in order at to protect all of our Constitutional rights. Not the enacted government enforcement, but the people. (A militia is an irregular army comprised of citizens) "I ask Sir, what is the MILITIA? It is the WHOLE people. To disarm the PEOPLE is the best and most effectual way to ENSLAVE them." -George Mason
Today we have a large faction of Americans who think America is above government control and empowerment, because our elected official have sworn to protect us from becoming a sovereign power structure. Really? We have officials in our elected government who have disregarded the Constitution and stated it is only a piece of history that should be considered no more then a "living document" that requires up to day legislative changes.
This country was founded on our rights of freedom, but we have those who are willing to give it up because they believe our founding fathers were inept and couldn't imagine the technology of today. Yet, through the last two hundred plus years our countrymen and women have fought and died for our constitutional rights, because they could envision the threats of servitude and autocracy. Our founding fathers looked forward for us, the benefactors, as they penned the Constitution.
Frank E. Vincent
This is not about ban on guns or gun control, it is about our Constitutional Rights, another example Ist Amendment Right: Sotomayor & Fed Judges will Force Christians to Act Against their faith. Abortion Law, Abortion inducing drugs, Sterilization, Full Term Abortions, for a man that does not qualify under Eligibilty for Presidential Office, not a Birther, thats a conversation stopper. Name 1 person that voted for Birth Name Sheikh Kahlid Obama or Barry Soetoro, 1 Foreigner Mombosa Kenya 2. Indonesia Naturalized with mother, then Legally Adopted & Legal Name Change. ILL Senator wrote the Abortion law for Kenya Constitution also has Sen Kobama school on the Lou Tribe land, Kenya. Without our Constitution, We The People have No Rights. Joe Biden Swearing in Ceromony Senator Heidi Heikamps, cross your legs, your gonna be frisked! 3rd term for Barry with Hugo Chavis calibrated 1 vote machines get ready for 20 yrs of transforming USA. Past time to Vet for Eligibility Requirement ? Impeach, Nixon was atleast USA Naturalborn, Clinton was lucky. 4 mil for Hawaii Christmas!
Just a thought, how many children has been murdered after being beaten and raped as compared with guns shooting children? India with the rape another death....Not guns, but other methods.
I am horrified that the vast majority of posters for this poll do not support more Gun control. I also note that comment is made concerning States that do having stricter controls have no noticeable lessening in gun related crimes. I strongly suspect that until the hallowed ground of the 2nd amendment is looked at with a view to making it more realistic in terms of society in the 21st century that nothing meaningful will be accomplished and these appalling tragedies of mass shootings will continue to occur in the USA. The Gun lobby's claims that teachers should go around armed and that if this was the case in Conn the children would have been saved is so tragically laughable that most sane people despair that it has any traction for a large proportion of the population. I come from a country, England where we have strict gun control. Yes we have certainly had mass shootings but they are very rare and annual gun related killings remain under 20 deaths while I understand in the USA the annual figure is around 12,000. Finally before anyone says the USA has a much larger population, which is true, 300 mio in the USA to around 60 mio in the UK the death figures are still startlingly high in the former. I am enormously fond of the USA and spent many happy years working in the country but its gun laws are a complete travesty. The case is exemplified by TV stations like Nat Geo showing programs about half- mad Preppers all going around armed to the teeth in the belief that when a global cataclysm occurs they and their family will be safe.
Free & Fair Elections would be nice. Vetting a nominee for Presidential office would be nice. USA Naturalborn would be nice. SEIU private maltia will carry guns. Where did USA go 2008? 20112? & 3rd term expected. Food for Thought!
NO!! IF one's intent is to kill they will find what ever is necessary to get the job DONE! It is not
the instrument so much as it is the one operating it!
IF you take away the guns --then what??--all the hammers..ballbats..knives...cut off people 's arms & hands(?)...sticks.... stones.....vehicles.....glass bottles...blunt pieces of metal....???????
YOU NAME IT-----------SOOOOO, ........I CONCLUDE: It is NOT the instrument, but the evil intent within one's OWN heart that causes these premature deaths!
World (and domestic) history has shown that banning certain types of weapons does not deter someone who wants to kill others. The shootings at Columbine High School occurred during the last time automatic weapons were banned. In cases such as this, the expression "Where there is a will, there is a way" is certainly applicable to this.
England, France and numerous other countries have also experienced shootings when guns were banned. As a matter of fact, the Police in England now carry weapons and wear bullet proof vests, even though guns are banned there.
Banning guns will only make the black market thrive, same as during prohibition.
Don't ban guns, fix the problem. I've posted this before, and feel it necessary to say it again, banning any type of gun or weapon, is usually a knee jerk reaction, and tantamount to putting a band aid on a broken arm.
Lets use some common sense. Private citizens do not need assault guns and ammo. The problems are the wackos who own all these guns and ammo.
I challenge Kaul, Feinstein, and others to read this research. Chicago has strict gun laws, as does Washington D.C, yet they have the highest violence in this nation.
As our nation continues to reel over the horrible tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, we are faced with how do we control such maniacs in a free society. There are some who would pounce all over guns and gun control, and would love to eradicate the 2nd Amendment, which would emasculate the US Constitution. They claim that there exists a positive correlation between gun control and violent crimes, which is a fool's errand. Look at the violent crime rate in our nation's capital. D.C. happens to have one of the highest crime rates in the nation, yet what happened to less guns equals less violent crime. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect all citizens from the two worst enemies in this nation; criminals and government. In a study made by Harvard University, we find some extraordinary facts concerning gun ownership. I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more
If I have a Gun(s) or not is none of the Governments business.
Do if they do then what will you do with thesew words?
Amendment II
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.
”If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
~The Dalai Lama
Those few who answered "yes" really need to do some reading on the issue.
Based on that rational, we should get rid of underground subways because people sometimes push others into the path of oncoming trains. Also, we should ban baseball bats, ropes, knives, cars and many other potential weapons!
We already have hundreds of laws regarding guns and gun control at the state and federal level. None of those laws could have, or did do, anything for any of the victims. Bad and deranged people will always find ways to do bad and deranged things. All this talk of more laws has done is cause more people to go out and buy the weapons they are threatening to ban, now more people have them than before.
The problem is not guns. The problem is the wackos and the criminals that get guns.