Do you disagree with the gun bans corporations are trying to make law in Florida? more below?
451767
I'm going to go against liberals on this one even though I consider myself a liberal. Gun ownership is protected by the 2nd ammendment. Everyone (with the exception of felons convicted of violent crimes) has the right to bear arms. I did qualify that right because I believe if you take away the rights of another through violence, you deserve to have your right taken away.\n\nI find it funny, and a bit hypocritical, that all the sponsers (except 1) of this are Republicans.\n\nThe 2nd ammendment states "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." In October, 2001, the Fifth Circuit upheld the validity of federal firearm statute at issue but, importantly, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to possess firearms, not just members of "militias." (see link)\n\nThere are no exceptions in the 2nd ammendment. It does imply that self defense is the primary objective. So, where should the line be drawn? If you feel you may be threstened at work, on your way to/from work, or at any point along the way, then you have a right to carry. \n\nWhile I can't email Florida Reps because I don't live in that state, I support you in your efforts.
1159593
Absolutely not.  My favorite, if not the best, example would be the thousands of gun control laws on the books.  These are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment which states quite clearly (in easy-to-understand, one- and two-syllable English words) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\n\nAnother example is the way the "necessary and proper" clause has come to mean "convenient."  When the Supreme Court can re-define words in the Constitution to mean whatever they want, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?\n\nThe interstate commerce clause has been stretched to absurd proportions so that Congress can now regulate anything that it wants based on the fact that somebody, somewhere might have once traded with someone in another state.\n\nDoes anyone remember the 9th and 10th Amendments, which tell us that the federal government is only allowed to do those few things which are specifically stated in the Constitution?  And yet there are volumes upon volumes of federal statutes that micromanage our lives.\n\nThe American people, through ignorance and apathy, have allowed their government to get by with this.  I know of no solution.  If the people have more faith in legal interpretations and judges' rulings than in their own ability to understand the simple words written down where all can see, then they deserve the tyrannical, authoritarian state that they are destined to get.\n\nFinally, I want to add that I once took a college course called "Constitutional Rights and Liberties."  But the curriculum was focused not around what those rights and liberties are, but on what judges have said about them.  It was a study in case law.  When people are taught that case law is more important than what the Constitution actually says, the outcome is predictable.  We come to depend on the government to interpret for us the document that is supposed to limit its scope of power.  Isn't this like signing a lease with a landlord that says the landlord gets to decide at any point on any question what the lease says?  Isn't re-defining "necessary" to mean "convenient" analogous to re-defining "$400 per month" to mean "$600 per month?"
585511
I can't argue with you. It is legal and controlled in most counties in Nevada. \n\nI think it should be legalized, controlled & taxed like any business. It will go on anyhow so why not regulate it and make it safer for every one involved.
766761
that's called free enterprise and capitalism at its finest. alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are 3 things you could get busted for selling across state lines because of the tax and registration implications.
902908
Why do you want a gun? Don't you think it's about time that guns shouldn't be allowed. NRA are serial killers and their place is in jail!!!!!!!!
622585
It's unconstitutional.\n\nAmendment II \n\nA 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. \n\nA free state not nation.\n\nYou really trust the government that much for your safety?  It takes thirty to forty minutes in this state for a deputy to respond to a call.  It takes thirty seconds for a person to bleed out.\n\nSo those of us who provide our own food what would we do? hunt with stones?  \n\nI have had a couple of situations where I was glad I was armed.\n\nWe have also had mountain lion attacks in this state.  I don't believe in the so-called non-lethal.  Pepperspray can be blown back in your face.  \n\nWhen people start getting killed by stones are you going to out law rocks  (people get killed with rocks now)?  How can this be done, are you God?  I doubt it.  What about cars, knives, scissors, rope, baseball bats, plastic bags.  Are you for banning all these?\n\nWhat actually effects violence is being stronger than a bad guy.  The philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt have a big stick and walk softly.  If everyone is armed the Bad guy naturally backs down, because they look for weaker targets.
1147099
Not a popular war???\n\nWhy every redneck in the state of Texas is just sitting by the phone with a beer in one hand --- a 12 GA shotgun in the other, singin' "God Bless America" and just waiting for that call from the Government  to go to Iraq, \n\nI keep telling them...this is a bit different ----deer don't shoot back!!!!!\n\noh well,
379024
Yes.  I don't want to hit something I'm not aiming at.  According to the constitution it's the only gun control that's allowed in the US.
447666
Ok..First off, there is no constitutional right to bear arms.  Bottom line, it doesn't exist.  I know you've heard politicians talk over and over about it, but the fact is the federal appellate courts are in near unanimous agreement that the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms, rather it is a guarantee of a militia...not my argument.. that's waht the courts say - that's what the law is.  One other point to drive this home.  The 2nd Amendment...whatever it means...does not apply to the states.  If the amendment does prevent the federal government from taking away individuals right to bear arms (which as I said earlier it doesn't), it does not apply to the states.  The states are free to ban all weapons of any sort (Washington D.C. does this by the way..).  SO bottom line...there is no constitutional right to bear arms.
71126
Your facts are true.  The criminals will get guns whether they are legal or not.  We have a right under the constitution to bear arms. Period.
623668
Sorry -- Long Answer:\n\nThe Bureau of ATF  -- Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (now called BATFE) was started as part of the Treasury Department at the end of Prohibition. Those were the guys who were assigned to bust the stills of the moonshiners. At the end of Prohibition, the distillers were legal again and the 'revenuers' needed something to do. So their department expanded into firearms regulation. \n\nAlcohol and tobacco have been highly taxed since before the Colonies became the United States. Government regulation of alcohol nearly broke apart the young country. Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion? Washington himself had to put that one down.  http://www.whiskeyrebellion.org/\n\nThis semi-historical novel by John Ross tells a lot about the history of the BATF  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_Consequences\nThe book is a great read (though somewhat rude). Chances are good that there is a copy in your public library.\n\n\nThe National Rifle Association was started right after the Great War Between the States. Union Generals Burnside and Wingate, some of the founders, saw fist hand that the southern boys could shoot the Yankee city boys to pieces any time they liked. Those Generals knew that for America to be defended properly she would need skilled riflemen. They formed a society that would promote safe and accurate use of firearms.  http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp\n\nFor over a hundred years, the NRA faithfully helped protect America by promoting marksmanship skills. Somehow, in the last 30 years, some elites came to believe that our own honest citizens could no longer be trusted with knowing the difference between right and wrong, knowing when to shoot and when not to shoot. Therefore, the NRA changed its focus from simply sponsoring matches and classes, to encouraging members to remind legislators that the common man is still a good guy.  \n\nThat radical, Thomas Jefferson said that, ' . . the Tree of Liberty must oftimes be manured with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' Some of us are here for the long haul. When the need arises, we will already be prepared.\n\nBy the way, I am a Firearms Instructor, certified by the NRA. \n\nKeep your muzzle pointed in a safe direction!\n\nLeigh\nPortland\nhttp://www.NWSafe.org
661493
Really the only thing we can do is pressure our elected officials to enforce the laws already on the books. The immigration bill that they are looking at now is just a farce and is loaded with things to enhance the political stature of the various sponsors. Of course, we all know that the government isn't about to listen to us, the little people, so, what can we do. If I thought I could get paid to go help build the fence, or if i were younger, join the border patrol. A moat? Thats funny, Florida gators? THats even funnier. You folks on here crack me up. Call your congressman, email your congressman thats the only thing you can do to make yourself feel better. there is nothing else you can do.
311314
I agree that many laws are passed by idiots - just b/c it's "illegal" doesn't mean the law that makes it illegal is a just law.  I aruge on the point of infringement, too - if what I do hurts someone else then it should be punishable by law, i.e drinking and driving.  But, if I'm the only person which I'm affecting, the government can get it's stinking hands out of my business, i.e, say if I felt like enjoying "herbal remedies" every now and then. \n\nPeople DO need to come up with a better response than "it's illegal" and actually examine the basis of the law itself, why it's illegal (is someone being hurt?), and go from there!\n\n\n*****\nI think that somebody is missing the point.  There are laws in MA that dictate that it is ILLEGAL to walk through Boston in high heels.  It is ILLEGAL to walk through Boston Common without a FIREARM (to protect you from those dangerous Native Americans).  Think about that for a second...\n\n...Now think about the over-generalized, peon-happy, statement that was made below this.\n\nI'm sure I would have gotten arrested by now if those laws were upheld, but alas they the Blue Laws exist.  And if I broke my ankle on one of the notoriously uneven cobblestone walkways in the city, I'd have to go to the hospital and have it x-rayed, then put in a cast.  That would cost my insurance company (thus increasing their pay-outs, and maybe YOUR healthcare premium?).  That would take up a doctor's time when he/she hadn't planned on my emergency arrival. \n\nSo should I never wear a heel to work or when on a date because I might break my ankle and cause a domino-effect of chaos through out the cosmos?\n\nI think that perhaps someone else needs to think outside of his/her box as well.  No one said that an action has no consequences, but let's be REAONSABLE about it.\n\n\n***\nJust to play the Devil's advocate for a second "ballsonwalls" (heh heh)...seatbelts reduce injuries sustained in accidents GREATLY.  Thereby reducing costs for insurers (freakin' crooks...).  An increase in insurers' costs would most definately be reflected in all our insurance bills, and I'd like to think that a savings b/c more ppl wear seatbelts would also be reflected.  Aside from that, f**k it.\n\nOo and ANOTHER example:  just b/c gay marriage is illegal in most states throughout the union, does that make gay relationships WRONG b/c the GOVERNMENT doesn't recognize them as LAWFUL??  PEOPLE NEED TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!
679147
No.  If they were going to do the right thing, they would allow law enforcement to enforce the laws already on the books.  This is an election year, so the issue once again comes up.
100296
An article titled, "The 7 Myths of Gun Control" addresses this topic. It's in the magazine, "America's Freedom 1st", put out by the NRA. The issue of the article is December 2001, written by Richard Poe.\n\nThe myths addressed in this article are as follows:\n1- "guns increase violent crime"\n\n2- "pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal"\n3- "guns pose a special threat to children"\n4- "the 2nd Amendment applies only to militiamen"\n5- "the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete relic of the frontier era"\n6- "we should treat guns the same way we treat cars, requiring licenses for all users"\n7- "reasonable gun control measures are no threat to law-abiding gun owners".\n\nAbout myth #7, all one has to do is check out how home invasion robberies have sky-rocketed in England & Australia, since the implentation of their respctive gun control policies.  In England, a citizen is required to flee the house during a break in, rather than defend the home, or face criminal charges if the burglar is harmed. How messed up is that?\n\nAnd, in states that have passed 'right-to-carry' laws, the spokespeople for the Brady bill, and other anti-gun entities have predicted there would be "blood in the streets" after these laws are passed.  Each time, they've been proven wrong.\nAfter Florida had passed their own "right to defend yourself" law, again, these people predicted that motorists will be shooting each other in mass road-rage incidents.  Again, they've been wrong.
947914
I believe it is my responsibility to protect myself and my family, i have always believed this and cannot understand why anyone would want to ban weapons from private citizens. The wisest question i have seen posted in some time, hopefully you will continue to provide all the people on here the ability to make use of their braincells, Granted, there are some who will miss your point but i can see that it has nothing to do with gun control and should be treated as a legitimate question to encourage debate and provide people the info to protect themselves and their families.
84035
Ridiculous.  Is the law requiring cars to stop at a stop sign based on a Nazi law?  Because the laws are remarkably similar to laws in Nazi Germany requiring cars to stop at stop signs.\n\n(One group has claimed that the origin of the distinction between guns suitable for sporting use and other guns comes from Nazi Germany.  And the group further claims that when the Brady Bill attempts to outlaw private ownership of semi-automatic weapons (which are only good for killing large numbers of people quickly, in war or otherwise, or practising to do so) it is applying this distinction first developed in Nazi law.  But 1) that is a far cry from the Brady Bill being a "translation" of Nazi legislation, 2) the Brady Bill ban on selected semi-automatic weapons is not the same as a ban on private ownership of any weapon not suitable for sporting use, and 3) the concept of a ban on such weapons in private hands goes back way before the Nazis, and existed throughout Europe, back into the days of Kings and nobility.  It was not invented by the Nazis.\n\nOppose gun control if you like.  But this is not a reason to do so.