FINALLY!!!! a good decision

There has been countless debate on what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. I'm not sure the intent of the writers was such that individuals could have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from each other. Maybe thats what it should have said but it doesn't seem that was the intent of those that wrote the amendment.

I disagree with those that want to take guns away. However, I also don't like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime.

i can appreciate your opinion. but at the same time we have to realize that "If we outlaw guns, then the only people with guns are the outlaws."

as far as gun ownership cutting crime, yea i believe to a degree it does, lets be honest. if your a crook and you've got a choice between a house where you KNOW there are probably firearms and a house where you KNOW there aren't.. your going to rob the house without cause you don't want to get shot either!

Very true. As thought. If a teacher had a gun at one of those school shooting the lose of life may have been less. But I am also in favor of big time background checks before a gun is sold. Further the person that buys a gun should be required to complete a course on the use of it.

You're an idiot. The evidence has been posted many, many times right here in this ng. States that have embraced CHL, (you have to OWN a gun before you can carry it), have seen the violent crime stats drop time and time again.

Stick to what you know. I have no idea what that is, but it certainly isn't environmental issues, alternative energy or guns, which is what you have wasted my time arguing about.

Craig C.

I like the way that they do it here in AZ, well at least in the South Eastern part of it. When you go in to buy a hand gun, there is no "cooling off" period, they run you right on the spot and if you have any DV related conviction, a TRO of any kind, warrant for arrest regardless of issuing state, etc. they tell you have a nice day! Now, I agree 100% with Roy about a manditory class, that would be great.

Yeah check this old story out. It was shortly after Colombine shooting. The loonies wanted all guns banned and now most schools bann the wearing of trench coats:

---------------- Sunday, 28 November, 1999, 18:44 GMT

A naked man burst into St Andrew's Roman Catholic Church in Thornton Heath, south London during a Sunday morning Mass, and attacked members of the congregation with a samurai sword.

One man suffered severe hand and face injuries, and 10 other people were hurt in the attack and the panic that followed.

Police said the casualties ranged in age from 16 to 78 and included four men and seven women, drawn from the white, black and Asian communities.

The man was overpowered by members of the congregation, including an off-duty policeman, who used an organ pipe and a large crucifix.

Police said they arrested a 26-year-old local man and were questioning him at Croydon police station.

I can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. However, you're free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldn't be any different for guns.

Is it OK for left wingers, like me, to own a gun to protect me and mine from the right wingers?

JAM

I agree. Like I said I have no desire to take guns away, I own one. But I do not think if everyone in the USA owned a few guns that violent crime would be reduced. People would think twice about breaking into a home and stealing your goods, but violent crimes that are not pre-meditated may rise. These days it seems that people settle disagreements through violent means.

i could agree on this point whole heartedly

The argument against this will be that the gun can project power beyond the property line without going beyond the property line.

Here in PA, we're facing legislation that would levy a $10 yearly fee on each gun, not owner, EACH gun that a person owns. This is being pushed by the democrats from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia in an effort to cut down on "illegal guns". To which I say, "Um, guys... if they are already illegal.... why would a fee on legal guns change that?"

Looks like I'm going to become an illegal gun owner.

Yup, the world seems to be upside down of late. Pretty soon Sharpton Jackson and they're ilk will be running the country by intimedation.

Roy

Chris Thompson wrote in Another gun kooky american...

Theives will NEVER know which house does or doesn't,

Maybe they will break in for the gun over anything else ? ? ?

Bullshit. In 20 years, we've had 2-3 serial robberies in town. None came near my house, despite the immediate neighbors being hit, and my back door being unlocked. Most people know I have some decent stuff, including a bunch of tools and audio video equipment.

They also know I have a 30.06. Same with a buddy of mine that lives a block away. So how is it that we both have neighbors that got robbed, but we didn't?

One thief admitted he knew which house not to bother. The other... well, I suppose it could be coincidence.

I think that would be a good idea. The fee is not huge but big enough to prevent people form collecting huge numbers of guns that tend to get lost and become "illegal guns". It forces people to take responsibility for the weapons that they aquire.

You might want to make it a point NOT to admit to possible crimes in a public forum. Something tells me that if they pass this, the next one will be severe punnishments for those that do not follow the rules.

The problem with a fee is it becomes a defacto annual gun registration program which I oppose in any situation. What makes you think a criminal would comply in any way with this? I think it would simply produce more criminals of otherwise decent citizens who believe the second amendment is exactly what it says it is.

Lugnut

The problem here as it has been stated MANY times in this thread, as well as in ANY thread we have had where gun control has come up is plain and simple, yet a lot of your liberals and who ever want to ignore and over look. NO CRIMINAL GIVES A SHIT!! This is why they are CRIMINALS!!! Any law addition, modification, deletion will only affect those that are NOT CRIMINALS?

exactly right. a fee or any other "gun control" measure will do absolutely nothing to remove the guns from criminal hands.

All of Lugnut's comments, plus for my self, I could put $250+ dollars to better use than the gov't. would.

Ken