Comments on: Gun Control and the Second Amendment

By: e.h.

e.h. — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:08:47 +0000

I am currently have a concelled handgun liscense and as a father i have the gun for my families protection. If you take away individual rights to own handguns only the criminals have guns. I have seen several people say some things about gun registration. Guns are registered to the person who purchases them. If someone attempts harm to me or my family they will pay with their life.

By: Nancy V.

Nancy V. — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:55:15 +0000

Re" Guns don't kill people, blah, blah..."
If a deranged person rushed into a university lecture hall (ala University of Northern Illinois), without a gun and threatened to kill everyone in the hall, how many students would be killed?

The current Supreme Court is a joke. They take away home rule and the neo-cons on the Court still haven't given Americans a valid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

By: Womenvoice

Womenvoice — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:37:33 +0000

It is overdue that this law-constitution is amended. Just look at how many innocent people have been killed senselessly.

Yes, criminals will bear a killing intention with or without guns, but they would kill far fewer without a gun.

By: Johnny Too Good

Johnny Too Good — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:51:17 +0000

I LOVE MY GUN and I need it!
if the government takes away the citizens' guns who will protect the law abiding citizens from the criminals who continuously break the law?

By: SJW

SJW — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:17:38 +0000

Devo-Mar – You are correct: Art. I, Sec. 8 gives Congress the authority to pass laws necessary for governing D.C. But aren’t you conveniently forgetting something? – namely that Congress can’t pass a law that violates the Constitution? See Marbury v. Maddison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

By: ROBERT LEE

ROBERT LEE — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:14:15 +0000

THE EARLY AMERICAN'S NEEDED THEIR GUNS AT THE READY AT ALL TIMES,BECAUSE THEY HAD NO ARMY OF SORTS,SO EVERY MAN NEEDED A GUN.POLICE WAS SCARCE . DO WE NEED SEMI
AUTOMATIC'S TO HUNT,I DON'T THINK SO.HOW MANY MORE WILL
DIED SO THE BOTTOM LINE CAN BE MET. THE 2ND WAS FOR MILITIAWE DONT'S HAVE ONE NOW.

By: kathy

kathy — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:07:47 +0000

Bad people will get guns law or not.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:06:46 +0000

The Constitution does not protect your right to own a car. It does protect your right to bear arms.

By: J-Z

J-Z — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:42:23 +0000

I love how in order to "stop crime" people advocate taking away my rights as a gun owner rather than punish the actual criminals. someone murders a person with a gun they get 3 hots and a cot. access to information, books education, exercise equipment, drugs, sex and cable. This way they can tell the world what victims of society and how unfair it is. then they get out and commit more crimes, But it is my fault crime exists, because I'm a legal gun owner.

By: John

John — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:41:13 +0000

Can't we just agree that the second amendment became somewhat antiquated when a well-regulated militia was no longer necessary to the security of any free state? We DO rely on a professional millitary now, the premise upon which the ammendment is asserted, to secure states, is no longer the function of any civilian with a gun.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:10:45 +0000

Makes sense- Allow the sale of semi-automatic weapons and other weaponry but take away the homeowners hand guns. Our society is so screwed up when it comes to the ridiculous acceptance of guns. How about a presidential candidate actually saying something meaningful about one of the country's most serious problem that too many people turn there heads too!

By: Tammy

Tammy — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:05:41 +0000

It wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court justices have trumped states' rights, and it probably won't be the last, if they rule in favor of Heller. I am a gun owner, and I do believe gun control is an issue for individual states to settle, not the federal courts. Thanks for posting something that actually made me think today (besides the Shock and Awe post earlier).

By: Cindy

Cindy — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:48:23 +0000

I don't think that the government should be able to take away everyone's right to own a gun. I mean there is a need for gun control laws to keep them out of the wrong hands. But if you are a law abiding citizen then you should be able to own as many as you like. It should be no ones business but your own.

Cynthia, Covington, Ga.

By: Joseph Kowalski, North Huntingdon, PA

Joseph Kowalski, North Huntingdon, PA — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:43:44 +0000

Since I am not a lawyer, I have nothing to say about the merits of this particular case from either side.

But with so many gun related deaths and injuries in the United States, something must eventually be done to control gun ownership.

We have more laws governing who should own a motor vehicle than we do a gun and a motor vehicle's primary purpose isn't killing as is a gun's primary purpose. At the very least, there should be a registration system for guns similar to what we have for motor vehicles.

By: Devo-Mar

Devo-Mar — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:36:23 +0000

If I remember correctly Congress has the supreme authority over the District of Columbia and allows the city of Washington to have a Mayor.
Therefore it is up to Congress to set the laws that protect the three branches of the U. S. Government.