I heard Dean is "Pro Gun." Is this true?

Please help me out. I'm pretty concerned about this. Actually, I'm embarrased to think that I have been supporting him without completely knowing his platform.

Vermont has one of the lowest homicide rates in the United States. During my 11 years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm.

If you say “gun control” in Vermont or Wyoming, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.

I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record, and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.


http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws
-----

I'm just saying the "vermont has one of the lowest homicide rates in the United States" claim may have less to do with his gun policy and more to do with the region of Vermont itself.

Dean's whole point is that places with low gun homicides rates -- like Vermont or Wyoming -- do not need the same stringet gun laws with high gun homicide rates -- like urban areas.

He is not saying he deserves credit for Vermont's low homicide rate.

He likes things pretty much the way they are now...

You should read his words...

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

homepage:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/

than pro gun. Through a strange twist of fate, we manage to have the perfect number of Federal gun laws for candidate Dean. Well except for one or two more like a Federal background check on private transfers (as opposed to transfers by dealers which are already regulated, even at gun shows). Oh yea, and we need another law to replace the sunsetting ban on sport utility rifles. He doesn't seem pro-gun to me.

Dean's stance is that most gun laws are state issues, not federal ones. He has said that he feels that laws which make sense in some states would be wrong in others due to differences in geography, population density, culture, etc.

It is not exactly a "pro-gun" stance, it's more of a "not up to the Feds" position.

He thinks the Constitution can be locally legislated. God help us if that attitude takes hold. How long would DU survive in the Republican states?

Mayors of cities and governors of states have signed gun laws for centuries.

that allowing states to have gun-control laws seperate from or in addition to federal laws is "unconstitutional"?

Sorry, I can't see that position. We all know the Constitution decrees the right to "keep and bear arms" but what exactly does that mean? It really is a matter of interpretation, whether any of us like that or not. If a state attempts to enact law that is directly in conflict with the Constitution then fine, they've gone too far but I don't think that is what we are talking about here.

"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 has the strongest wording of any of the first 10 ammendments.

Everyone's favorite

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting 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"

is only a restriction on Congress

The fourth amendment has a reasonableness test included in it.

5 and 6 are pretty strongly worded too.


Let's translate it into modern american shall we:

"Since a properly functioning militia (all able bodied adult citizens) is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of individual citizens to own and carry arms shall not be infringed"

Note that there is no reasonableness test, nor any other qualification. It is a blanket restriction on government power, as such it applies to every level, and every branch.

The US constitution does not permit any regulation, suspension, or taxation of a citizens right to own, posess, or carry arms (including firearms) by Federal, State, County or City Government.

That is the correct interpretation.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I feel like an idiot. I don't like guns.

But as long as the 2nd amendment (yes, I know it's vague - that's another argument) applies (by any lawful interpretation), then I'll not deride anyone's right to legally own a firearm - much as I may personally abhor them.

finance reform. We need to make the second ammendment go away!<p>
That was in place to keep the govenment afraid of us. A little obsolete I'd say!

Campaign finance reform will likely go away fairly soon. At least in its current form.

But I always thank those who are opposed to guns for being so obvious about it.

The gun violence issue is not so much a problem cause by guns as it is a problem caused by cramming too many people into too small of an area. That's why there is so much more violence and crime in cities. You don't see these same problems in rural areas. Percentage wise, based on population, there are far more guns compared to the number of people in rural areas than there are in urban areas. Less guns don't equal less gun crime. Guns are a tool that has the potential to be deadly if used improperly. The same is true of automobiles, hammers, knives, axes, baseball bats and a rock. Virtually anything could be used as a weapon. Guns will never be taken out of the hands of criminals as long as they want them. They can easily be smuggled into the country from overseas. The best defense against gun violence is to address poverty and get violent criminals off the street. A lot of people end up in a life of crime because they don't feel they have other options. How many kids do you recall saying they wanted to be a criminal when they grew up? The gun violence is a symptom of a much bigger problem. It's time to stop putting bandaids on the surface just to appease people into thinking something is being done when it really isn't. Gun control is ineffective, a waste of time and resources that would be much better spent addressing the root problem...poverty.

If you dont like guns then do something locally to get some form of gun control enacted. There will be no gun control enacted on a federal scale of any consequence any time soon I guarentee it. The southern states will never let it hapen.

I of course will help to see it doesnt but i respect your right to try. Your best bet though is localy

but your right support w/out understanding=sheep

i saw a post here just the other day where the poster was outraged than Dean had tricked the peace crowd into thinking he was anti-war and how pissed off they would be when they found out he wasnt against all wars
after he had taken all thier money.

All i could do was scratch my head and wonder why people would send money to candidates withoput knowing what they stood for.

Until such time as each citizen in this country assumes responsibility for educating themselves on issues, candidates, or -your issue here- there will always be those who cry that they have been "tricked".

I don't get it either. :shrug:

Is that that big of an issue? As long as we're not invading some soverign nation, killing thousands, destroying the economy, then who cares if you have a shotgun and a glock in your closet? The whole gun issue is so rediculous. Criminals will ALWAYS find guns, but law abiding citizens shouldn't have big restrictions put on em. There are more important issues. What would you rather have? Strong gun laws but Bush in office, or not so strong laws, like we have now, and Dean in office?

confiscate them like we did gold in the 40's?

Folks ain't gonna let the U.S Govenrment take their guns.. And I don't blame them... Bigwave... You're pretty young aren't ya?

I admit I am no fan of guns so I support gun control so me and VermontDem2004 who is also my age had a little discussion, and it was all good, I kinda jabbed myself too, but I am a little sensitve about guns. I dont believe in confiscation honestly but boy oh boy do I not like em.

Drug use still exists. :shrug:

At this time, it is 100% legal to own specific sorts of firearms and sell them to non-felons.

And then you have to figure in the 2nd ammendment, and lots of people who enjoy owning weapons, and it's a lot easier to kill someone you don't like with a firearm than a bag of gold coins...

Ever hear of Ruby Ridge?

Remember what happened in Australia.
They took away the honest peoples guns.
And the crime rate shot up over 200%.
The criminals still had they're guns.
And it was a field day for them.

And I'm kinda torn about the assault rifle ban.
How many crimes have been done using $5000+ rifles?
I can only remember three in the last twenty years.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

Detail...

It's called the Second Amendment....

While the Second Amendment doesn't proscribe sensible gun laws it does proscribe confiscation....

US v. Emerson, 5th Circuit (2001), cert. denied S. Ct. _____ (2002).

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm

than the wars raging right here at home.

Inner cities and minorities suffer most from gun trafficking. Most of the guns in urban areas come from the rural (and mostly white) states. The gun corporations and the NRA (a GOP subsidiary) take pride in profiting from the blood of our young people -- mostly minority youth.

I guess Dean could care less about that either. After all, he is from a rural state that's like 99 % white. One can't expect him to understand the issue.

Dean's stance on gun control makes no sense. It's a federal problem, not a local one. A state like NY can pass laws up the yin yang, but it would still be useless unless it can put up a wall on its borders. Arguing that guns are a state issue is like arguing that pollution is a state issue. Arguing that guns are an absolute right is like arguing that polluting should be a right. In both cases the "right" involved infringes on the rights of others -- collective rights. Core principals of liberalism are concepts such as collective rights and the social contract. Might as well be a right wing individualist if one fails to see the importance of those concepts.

What else do you need to know?

Assault weapons a state issue? I guess that assault ban we used to have was really just a waste of time and effort and paper and taxpayer money to pass and enforce. What was Congress thinking?

Please cite the amount of crimes comited with an assult rifle.

I'll help you "in California, a study by the attorney general's office found that "assault weapons" accounted for only 1.3 percent of guns involved in violent crime."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that he is in favor of the assult weapons ban. If you didn't know and posted anyhow shame on you. If you did know and posted a known falsehood double shame on you.

from the Dean for America website (his official website):

"I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

"I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record, and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric."

http://deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

Dean understands that Americans need to be able to defend themselves. That's one reason I support him.

Sorry, this was the perfect opportunity for a Snatch quote...

On a sidenote, most people don't understand the need for self defense until they've been victimized at least once. Something about knowing your life is at the whim of a criminal and nothing you can do about it. Kind of like a foreign leader thinking about Dubya...

This could be a cornerstone of a third political party. Every reputable poll has found that a majority of Americans want some sensible sorts of gun regulation. Every other socalled advanced nation has much stronger regulation of guns and the lower murder rates that go with them. Far more Americans die from this domestic terrorism than all the foreign terrorists put together.

Yes Americans do want gun regulation. Personally some of the stuff being sad kinda scares me. I dont hate Dean for his views on guns but disagree with some of you all and him.

What you say may be true, but guns and gun violence were NEVER a part of many of those nations. Now that guns are already out there, there's no way to get them back.

It's already TOO late. Gun control laws are just a denial of reality.

...you won't hear this too vocally, but one of the things one might want to defend themselves against is a corporate-federal alliance that seeks to take away those rights granted us by the Constitution. If one day Ashcroft gets it into his noggin...ok, I'll just leave it at that, but I think you might get the jist of it.

Myself personally, I own big guns to make up for my feelings of inadequacy over having a small tool. Actually, I don't own any guns. But I've no problem with lawful ownership of firearms. Note that I say lawful...

From people who have guns?

No guns, no need to defend. WTF?

Considering most gun crime is linked to drugs and gangs, and we all know how well our efforts to stop illegal guns have worked, exactly how well do you think we can stop criminals from getting guns illegally?

Well, let's look at Britain... handgun and gun crime are up to the highest levels they've ever been since the total lockdown on all guns.

Also, consider that most of the homicides in the US don't even occur with guns. How can you say that if guns didn't exist the need for self defense would not exist?

Let's say roughly, 40% of the homicides in the US are committed with guns. If guns ceased to exist, and I sincerely doubt any law can do that, we'll generously say that only half of them are still comitted.

So as a result, overall we still have 80% of the homicides. Now, let me ask you, how many homicides will additionally be comitted because criminals know their victims will be disarmed?

Well, even if you say none, chances are you'll find the crime rate will still be high, even without guns. In fact, if you ignore gun crime entirely, the US's crime rate in all other areas still is greater than Canada's, which has a very high gun ownership rate.

In the end crime is motive plus opportunity... perhaps we should work on those rather than chasing a red herring? Just a thought.

No guns, no need to defend? If only the world were so simple.

In some parts of rural America--- like the part I happen live in--- it can routinely take a deupty sheriff 45 minutes or longer to respond to an emergency call. If my home is being invaded, or a member of my family being threatened with bodily harm or death, I have a legitmate need for a firearm AND the Constitution guarantees me the right to posess one!

I live 30+ miles from the nearest police station. Statistics show the average victim in a home invasion lives about 6 minutes. Who's looking out for me?

The common saying around here is, "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."

There was a bounty on coyotes. They had a population explosion, and were venturing into the Dallas suburb. And killing dogs and cats for food.
I also heard a report of some coyotes in the same town, going after some small childeren. I don't know if the last was true or not. But Denton is a booming town just to the north of Dallas. I personally would rather protect my pets with a gun than with a kitchen knife.

Think before you post: How will you get criminals to give up their guns? I don't think any honest person who seriously THINKS it through can come to the conclusion that gun control laws make any sense.

How well has the government managed to stop people from using illegal drugs? Well guns would be the same issue, they'd always still be out there, regardless of what laws we pass. But, unlike drugs, putting guns only in the hands of criminals will be detrimental to law abiding citizens.

I live in Wisconsin and I am a hunter. If you must know, I have shot two deer and a number of other animals and I am not ashamed of it. I was very distressed to see that this party had been heading down a hard line anti-gun platform, but the loss of votes in states like West Virginia have finally woken this party up and we have Dean and Clark who are now pro-gun and pro-outdoorsmen. We can not win as Democrats without the votes of the blue-collar and middle-class outdoorsmen. If you want this to be a vehementally anti-gun party, go ahead. Just know that we will not win national elections for some time to come unless there is some big disaster that forces the Republicans out.

This is something you find fun?

Oh, of course you do. I'm not ideologically pure enough to be a Democrat, right?

It's not that I do it for fun. It's that venison is really high quality meat.

I mean, not all of us Democrats have a problem with it. Even many urban Dems don't care one whit if you go out and shoot a deer or two or ten.

Could you elaborate on the fun factor? If you don't mind, that is. I figure those people who hunt animals for sport would find some sort of "fun" to it.

Now hunting for sport baffles me to ends but you have the right I guess.

And I could go back and edit my post, but I don't think I will. I really meant it that way, although I don't draw much of a line between hunting as a sport and hunting for food. I probably should. But saying that someone is hunting for food brings up visions of neanderthals hunting with clubs.

So when I wrote sport, I really meant it as hunting with a purpose - a sport with a purpose, if you will. Rather confusing.

My brother fishes with a net and hunts for deer. I can't remember what the limit on deer is where he lives, but I recall it being an high number. At any rate, I view what he does as sport, though he feeds his family with what he hunts.

There are the trophy hunters and I don't get those people at all.

Then there's those who hunt as part of male bonding and being outdoors, connecting to the natural cycle of food and nature and survival, providing food for the family or food banks, and stuff like that. I say male bonding here, but lots of women hunt too. These folks I understand, although hunting is never something I wanted to do. Fishing either really. But I do understand that hunting can play a part in a person making the connection that they are part of the natural order and their survival depends on nature. They can actually then become more interested in environmental causes, even though their reasons baffle modern day environmentalists.

if you don't shoot the dear, they will die of starvation, it's a fact. It's called population control. Plus, dear meat is goooooood stuff.

They taste good.

go hungry, then sure, having a full tummy is "fun". If my father weren't able to hunt when him and my mother were trying to raise and care for 4 children, being poor, we would have gone hungry. Isn't caring for the poor a big part of Democratic values?

Nobody is trying to stop you. I've lived around hunters my whole life and I don't know any of them who don't believe in keeping their guns safe and locked up. I don't know any who had a problem with outlawing sawed off shotguns and machine guns and other weapons nobody has any business owning. And I don't know any of them who ever had a problem with filling out the little slip of paper when they buy a gun either. Now the NRA decides to make age-old laws an issue of 'freedom' and otherwise intelligent people fall right in line. These laws just add new guns to old lists, provide a check to try to keep guns out of the hands of convicts and the mentally ill, and add some safety precautions. It's really not that big of a deal, I don't know why responsible gun owners don't embrace these laws so they can be assured their gun will never kill someone.

he ripped into a sunday news reporter, who wrote that dems are 'distancing' themselves from gun control.

kerry is also a hunter, who owns lots of guns and uses them. he does those extreme sports things, too. anyway, kerry wants gun safety laws strengthened... especially for children and families. too many accidents with guns in the home.

i, for one, was glad to hear kerry address this issue during the debate last night. dems are not wusses, damn it! i'd like to see * keep up with kerry whitewater kayaking!

He has said that he supports closing the "gun show" loophole. To be for states rights and closing the gun show loophole seem to me to be contradictory positions. Here is what happens when a right wing legislature makes state law:


CBS) The National Rifle Association gave thousands of dollars last month to Colorado state legislators in an effort to defeat gun control laws inspired by the Columbine massacre. CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports many of those measures were voted down this week.

Only a few token laws, those supported by the NRA, passed. One allows cops to arrest people who buy guns for criminals and children; another re-authorizes a state background check program.

Most of the other proposals were shot down. Among other things, these laws required background checks at gun shows, safe storage of guns at home and an increase in the age for buying a handgun from 18 to 21.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/16/columbine/main161459.shtml





This is what happens when states are allowed to make gun law - laws that supercede city regulations:



Colorado cities face gun law showdown
Communities trying to keep people from openly carrying firearms

By Catherine Tsai, Associated Press
August 13, 2003

DENVER — A showdown is developing in Colorado cities between the right to bear arms and public safety as city councils consider barring residents from openly carrying firearms in public buildings.

New state laws prevent cities from banning concealed weapons in public buildings, but at least seven communities are trying to keep people from carrying them openly.


http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/state_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2419_2178760,00.html

There are many Dean supporters who will try to paint the gun control issue as unimportant, in fact, as something that will benefit him. Dean's position can only be seen for what it is - the position of someone who governed a rural state where it is legal for a 16 year old to carry a concealed weapon, a state with around 650,000 people - an entire state with a population of less than many American cities. Denver, for instance.

It is essentially a conservative, some might even say right wing stand. Perhaps he will pick up some Republican votes this way. Perhaps he will lose some Democratic votes.

edited for grammer

I can't imagine ANY need to have handguns.

OK, put yourself in this situation, which happens more than you know. You're home along at night and someone breaks in and he's got a weapon. what the hell are you gonna do, hide and wait for the police? OR shoot his ass.

But if registration and other safety measures are put in place, there's not alot of reason to totally ban all handguns. Truthfully, it's the killing mind-set that needs adjusting in America more than the actual possession of guns.

Or do you mean the gunshow loophole?

Handguns should be illegal. They have no use other than to kill people. The fact that they are still allowed to be owned is a LOOPHOLE IMHO!

??

Governor, guns cross state borders. Maybe it's you who should stay at the state level.

"Governor Dean is wrong for America on gun policy," said Michael Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March. "It makes no more sense to leave gun policy up to each individual state than it would to let each state set separate environmental standards. Guns cross state lines as easily as pollution."

Dean's state-by-state approach to gun crime won't work. Every day, gun traffickers take advantage of states with the weakest laws to get guns. Those guns are then sold on the black market in cities and states with strong gun laws. The only way to crack down on illegal gun sales is with strong federal gun laws that apply to all states.

You can ask two former New Jersey Police officers, David Lemongello and Ken McGuire. Their law enforcement careers ended when a criminal shot them during a stakeout. And how did that gun get to New Jersey? It was bought from an irresponsible dealer in West Virginia.

http://www.bradycampaign.com/press/release.asp?Record=491

Let me add that Dean will be in charge of appointing Supreme Court Justices. While being pro-states' rights may look good in an election, I don't want someone who actually thinks like that sitting on the Supreme Court for 30 years.

And pry my gun from my cold dead fingers!

The only way to be safe is to stop breathing. You cant legislate the world safe.

Drug laws havent ever stopped me from getting pot. Gun laws wont stop anyone either. It will just create a dangerous black market like it does for pot.

Sory but I want to have my guns when the BFEE comes knocking.

Even though I dont like guns and havent owned one in over 20 years.

What is this condescending, paternalistic fantasy that some Democrats have that we can simply LEGISLATE a safe world? You can have freedom, or you can have safety--- there is no guarantee that you can have both at the same time. Choose!

"You can have freedom, or you can have safety--- there is no guarantee that you can have both at the same time. Choose!"

False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

Aren't getting slaughtered in Washington DC, are they?

Of course not! Make guns illegal and round them up.

I don't want to agree with SHRUB on this issue!

You *will* need it...

Spoken like a true something or other.

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.

"I hope you're wearing body armor when you come for mine.
You *will* need it..."

The police will be coming for you, not me. You won't be so brash then.

This *is* a life-or-death issue for most gun owners, and only a total fool would think otherwise.

Not everyone is a completely spineless coward.

I agree with you 100%!

This forum is home to more people with their collective heads in the clouds than I've ever seen. All this "flower power" stuff sounds nice, but in REALITY it doesn't work.

By the way, ever think maybe Bush (or his puppet masters) have an ulterior motive for disarming the general populace?

Gosh, I'd hate to create a black market for guns! I much prefer that drug dealers buy them after a 5 day wait, like they do now!

They Can't

I think Dean will have some problems with it once the word gets out. At a minimum, we don't need handguns and should make them illegal.

I love people who squak about the constitution. Guns are illegal in Washington DC! Nobody has a problem with that.

What's good for the Capitol is good for the rest of the US.

DC is an URBAN area! Not all of America is urban. And wtf is it about handguns? The *vast majority* of handgun owners are law-abiding citizens! Take them from the *criminals*, not us...:wtf:

On edit: When did 'we' vote on this being a "core, progressive value"? And if we didn't vote, who the hell gives YOU the right to determine for ME what is or is not a core, progressive value?

Don't like guns.

So your statement is demonstrably false.

abortions. I dont want one, but if I ever needed one, I would want the opportunity to get one.

Im sorry you hate guns, but my freedom is more important than your fear.

I love peace, too.

Great to have you around to TELL us how we're all wrong because we don't agree with you.

You can disagree with the guy. But Brady got a bunch of his brain blown out by a gun. He deserves not to be told to "bite your ass."

I said the brady campaign not brady himself. Maybe if i got a bullet through my brain I might feel differently.

As it stands now. The campaign can bite my ass.

I would like to know because Dean favors all of the following. Renewing Brady, renewing the assult weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole. So if that gun dealer was irresponsible in any of those three ways Dean favors criminalizing that irresponsibliity.

are for each state making it's own law. What Dean says he wants means nothing, it's window dressing if every state can contradict him.

The only way Dean can get the things he "favors" is to make it federal law. Otherwise he's just talking out his ass...

Remember slavery?

Why should anyone worry about something like that — besides fearing for their life, or for the lives of their loved ones, that is? Teachers, principals and students, too. And people in the mall, or on the highway, or in church, or at the football game, or at the rock concert, or down the street...

From the Brady site:

CCW Limits
May police limit carrying concealed handguns? NO

State law allows anyone who can buy a gun to carry it loaded and concealed in public. No police permit or police notification is required to carry loaded guns hidden on a person. No training in gun laws or gun safety is required. Vermont is the only state in the country to have such a lax approach to the carrying of loaded, concealed weapons in public.

Sources:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.asp?state=vt#ccw

http://www.atg.state.vt.us/display.php?pubsec=4&curdoc=109

nt

But you have to be over 21 to buy a handgun.

Funny I always assumed the legal age was 18, of course I couldn't legally drink until 21.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 to be precise...

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

(1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;

...here's what the Vermont law states:

Section 4008. Possession of firearms by children

A child under the age of sixteen years shall not, without the consent of his parents or guardian, have in his possession or control a pistol or revolver constructed or designed for the use of gunpowder or other explosive substance with leaden ball or shot. A child who violates a provision of this section shall be deemed a delinquent child under the provisions of chapter 11 of Title 33.

Your lack of logical reasoning is embarassing to me. How many people died at Columbine?

Now, think, how many would have died if those fools had whipped out their guns, and found themselves in the crosshairs of their teachers and fellow students?

Columbine is a perfect argument AGAINST gun control, not for it. If I were planning on going on a shooting spree, believe me, I'd be able to get a gun whether they were legal or not.

Because anyone thinking about trying it knows that their intended victim might be packing heat and pop a cap in their ass. :D

The government doesn't know that I have them.
They are legal in every way.
They have no serial numbers.
I hunt with two, a handgun and a rifle.
both are 50 calaber. both take several minutes to reload.
They are muzzel loading blackpowder guns.
So far no gun law affects these weapons.

So you are defenseless against the BFG (or whatever).

They don't know I have them.


Plus I live in Texas. If the government decides to confiscate all firearms. They better bring in the national troops. Because the local law enforcement will refuse to do it. And the troops better be ready for gurilla warfare.

possibility of parole if you had a gun, you would turn it in. Trust me.

Neither would most people who own guns. Don't be naive.

This is another one of those nonsensical ideas (and another reason the death penalty is bad). I seriously doubt many people would turn their gun in, regardless of the consequences, if they really believed in owning one. Not to mention it would be found to be cruel and unusual punishment to have such an excessive penalty (as 3 strikes in California SHOULD HAVE BEEN, and the Death Penalty still should be.)

<>

Do you plan on going for the splatter effect:)?

Like one of these bad boys: http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/aa27932a142dc6538525627b006ae4f8?OpenDocument

They are black powder muzzle loaders.
Sub sonic. Max effective range is about 300 feet.
Think 1850's rifles, then you have it.
like the old warner bro's cartoons.
The two country guys. Where the rifle vibrates for two minutes before the bullet comes out.

I keep thinking about Yosemite Sam.

These guys were in only one or two Bugs Bunny cartoons.
I think just before Sam came around.

But will say I do not wish every Tom Dick and Harry to be walking around with a gun in his belt. That does not make me feel safer.

Hitler was anti-gun

without guns the repukes will have an easier time taking over

A recent and coherent explanation of the 2nd Amendment and the US v. Miller, 59 S.Ct. 816 (1939) decision most frequently cited by gun-control group. In Emerson, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to own a firearm, and the US Supreme Court declined certiorari.

that had been accepted for two centuries and I am supposed to care? Nope. It was a reach for the 5th circut, with an amicus brief by Ted Olsen, and the Supreme Court? Well, do we really have to say where they stand?

"Rewrites two centuries of law" is an incredibly 'disingenous' statement (the polite way of saying it I can think of). Have you actually read the case? :eyes:

He supports the renewal of the Brady Act, and the assult weapons ban, which are federal laws. He also supports the bill to end the gun show loophole (probably a similar measure to what Lieberman and McCain were pushing for a while back). These would all be federal measures, because I don't see how such measures could be enacted on a state by state basis.

I'm not sure what more could be realistically done on the fedral level. I myself am not a fan of guns, but as I realize it, it is legal according to the constitution, and I may myself at some point wish to own one, for safety purposes, or otherwise. I would love to see everyone willingly give up handguns, assult rifles, and other such weapons, not used for hunting, but I don't see that happening in the near future in this country. Plus, after looking at the statistics for many other industrialized nations, it looks like strong gun laws are prevelant in many, but not so much in others, and in many cases the nations without strong gun laws, still have a smal number of gun related deaths...Canada in a good example being that there aren't as many gun deaths. It may have to do with the way people live in this country, the culture, etc (and by no means am I blaming violent video games and movies, after all the japanese play much more violent video games and have one of the lowest crime rates)...I think it's deeper than that.

That said, I don't see the point in kissing up to the NRA. We shouldn't really have to do that, but at the same time, in order to win this next election, gun owners in southern and more rural states, cannot be turned off because of this issue. It simply wouldn't be worth it.