An armed citizen can be a survivor, an unarmed citizen can be a victim. Any questions???

Fred Thompson, canidate, gives the best representation of what I consider genuine American values seemingly absent from politics these years. Remember, It was the old Country that brought us into this age of freedoms, Without evolving security machination/mobilization where is a newfangled liberal withdrawl/approach going TO LEAD U.S. ???$$$

Actually, there is a qualification in the second amendment, if anyone has read it lately: "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."  At the least that's a call for some sort of regulation; at the most, it sounds like anyone who owns a firearm should also be trained and prepared to join a local militia.  

Consider England. Some years ago they banned ALL GUNS.
Now, the police in England's big cities are facing organized gangs with automatic weapons. The old saw about 'when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns' is now true in England in the present tense. Of course we would be much better at banning illegal guns here in the US - just look at the good job we did banning Alcohol, Heroin, Cocaine, Speed, Acid and marijuanna!

What I'm saying is that the govt. should have figured out from 1930's prohibition that banning something people want immediately gives economic power to criminal gangs and worse. IT DOESN'T STOP THE PROBLEM IT MAKES IT INFINITELY WORSE!

Whatever you feel about guns (and we all know people we don't want to be armed), BANNING THEM IS NOT THE ANSWER.

LETS REMEMBER THAT THE REASON THE FOUNDING FATHERS GAURANTEED US THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS BECAUSE THEY FORESAW THE NEED FOR THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS EXPLICITLY PASSED AS A RESPONSE TO THE BRITISH ATTEMPTING TO CONFISCATE ALL THE COLONISTS WEAPONS AT THE START OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR. MAYBE WE SHOULD GIVE IT A TRY?

What you people seem to miss, is that ANY restriction of our basic rights is a violation of our constitution.

It is the governments job to PROTECT and DEFEND the rights of the individual, not restrict them, and this, like free speech, includes the wackos.

And for them to increase cigarette taxes to pay for some poor persons health care is monstrous.

WHY must a person who CHOOSES to consume a legally available product be forced to pay DOLLARS in tax per pack to support ANY other cause? If they are truly harmful, BAN them, if they are not, LEAVE THEM ALONE.
(Then, with the other hand the government is paying the tobacco farmers subsidies.....grrrr)

As with this health care CRAP, everyone misses the point. NO ONE has the right to take from me what I produce by my own hand and give it to others without my permission. ANY time you have one person getting a monetary benefit (regardless of need, because need, does not presuppose rights) from the "government", you first must take it by force from he who worked to PRODUCE this money. THIS is not only a monsterous moral injustice, but contrary to the constitution as well, by violating my right to live my life in the pursuit of MY own happiness.

Health care is freely available on the open market for them who will EARN it by PAYING for it, and the cost would be affordable if government regulators would get the hell out of it and let free enterprise work as it does so well in industries like computers and electronics and for the same reasons.

YES, the whacko has the right to walk up and buy a gun, but he doesn't have the right to violate anyone else's rights by harming them with it. Just as some wacko waiter has the right to buy Muriatic Acid, but not to violate people's rights by serving it as lemonade in a restaurant. SAME THING.

The difference is in the (hopefully rational) philosophy of the individual which determines HOW he will use the materials he is freely able to purchase.
Are we teaching RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY in our schools??
Hmmm, maybe THAT is a good place to start!

The 3 day waiting, or in California 3 week waiting period is pure democrat crap. If you want to, ANYONE can buy a gun on the street in minutes... besides, if you are thinking of taking someone out, it isn't the impulse purchase that will make it happen. Once again you are protecting yourself from the innocent people not from the criminals, and for the politicians to say they are "Doing Something about crime" is a bold face LIE and they should be recalled.

Have you EVER met a politician who didn't leave the office WEALTHY? Are the salaries REALLY that good?
:-)

Crimes committed by registered gun owners is under 1%.

Taking guns away will only drive up crime rate.

For every right and law, there will ALWAYS be someone who will abuse it.  There are insane people in this world that will get guns no matter what the law is.  I have a right to own a gun and that should NEVER be changed...if it had, I'd be dead right now because of a person that had a gun ILLEGALLY.

As for the Clintons, I think Bill was already acting like a first lady a long time ago.  

None of the politicians are worth a damn, regardless of their party.

Have any of you guys ever been to a gin show? do any of you even own a gun? Does anyone live in a high crime area or know someone who has been a victim of crime? Does anyone hunt or shoot for recreation? If not, then you have no idea what Thompson is talking about.

Nicholas, there is a mechanism to amend the constitution and it's not by legislation or regulation.

As a gun owner, I am all for keeping the second amendment in tact.  I am a collector, and find a lot of joy in collecting antique battle rifles from both the WWI and WWII eras.  While there are obviously some problems with the current gun laws, it certainly would not be fair to simply abolish the right to private gun ownership like some have stated above.  Criminals will be able to get guns no matter what is or is not allowed to be sold legally.  Why can't people accept that as a fact?  It is also time to accept that just because someone owns a gun, it does not mean that they intend to kill someone with it.  Some people just find pleasure in shooting or collecting (like me).

What about making it a requirement to put aside all your money and posessions to hold any office that commands the country. Then hold their financial records up to scrutiny after their terms end to ensure they do not benefit from special interest groups or big buisness. Then see how many of the people wanting these positions are still interested in these jobs. After all, Isn't their reasoning for wanting public office to serve their country, and not themselves? I think then a whole different class would be making the decisions, instead of the ultra-rich. How could they ever relate to the majority of Americans anyway, when they suffer for nothing, while most Americans can barely afford to house, clothe, and feed their children.

This man really scares me. I am actually afraid for the future of this country. I am against the current administration and their lies-all I see with Fred Thompson is someone who wants to continue taking rights away from Americans while making it sound like he's giving them more.

I have stickers on the back of my car that express my opinions regarding the current administration and their actions. I have been cussed out, almost ran off of the road, and the latest called an 'unamerican b*tch' in the parking lot of my grocery store. I am minding my own business, expressing my opinion as a tax-paying citizen of this country, and that is how I am treated. How much worse will it get and how many more of my rights will be taken away if this type of administration is allowed to continue? I am very scared for the future...

Fred meant, "...what remains of the Constitution."

Fred Heads!!!!! UNITE!!

MARK MY WORD: Think of Universal Healthcare as a donkey walking down main street; on its way to Capitol Hill. It has got two riders in the saddle. The Jackass's name is Universal Healthcare, the one of the rider's name is Legalized Doctor-assisted-suiside, and the other is legalized euthonasia."W.S.M"

WAY TO GO. BUSH SUCKS

Not only am I a proud member of the NRA, but I'm also an NRA firearm safety instructor. I spent 25 years defending the Constitution of this great nation as a member of the Armed Forces. With that said, I feel any person that passes a background check should be able to and have the right to buy a firearm. I have been to a lot of gun shows and they always did a background check on any buyer. So what is the problem here? Like Castor Ramerez stated on Friday, lets start enforcing the existing laws.

Not only am I a proud member of the NRA, but I'm also an NRA firearm safety instructor. I spent 25 years defending the Constitution of this great nation as a member of the Armed Forces. With that said, I feel any person that passes a background check should be able to and have the right to buy a firearm. I have been to a lot of gun shows and they always did a background check on any buyer. So what is the problem here? Like Castor Ramerez stated on Friday, lets start enforcing the existing laws.

2 quick points: 1. I think that it should be incumbent upon the State to show cause why anyone should not be allowed to carry a firearm.  If the State cannot show cause, such as being a felon, mental instability, addicted to drugs, history of violence, etc., then any legal resident of that State should be permited to carry a firearm openly.  If someone at Va. Tech had been carring a firearm (other than the nutcase) things may have turned out different.  Also, all States should honor weapons permits issued by all other States.  This is another of those pesky laws in the Constitution.  Article 4, Section 1 states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the Public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedeings of every other State".  Every State honors a drivers license issued by every other State, and cars were not even a dream when the Constitution was written.  By the same token, a firearms permit issed by any State should be honored by every State. (pay attention here, Maryland!)
Point 2: I thank God every time I find a site like this where everyone can openly voice their opinion. This is another freedom granted us by the Constitution.  So don't be to eager to start removing pieces of it that you happen not to like.  Start tugging on the threads, and soon the whole tapestry will come undone.  And one comment on an earlier remark that I read here, the 3rd amendment is not obsolete.  This is not done in America today only because the Constitution forbids it.

It is all about the money! Politicians pander to gun owners to get more contributions.
Gun manufacturers and ammo manufacturers fully fund the NRA so they can continue to sell and make more money.
Gun owners are manipulated to go buy the biggest and baddest weapon to feel cool....what nonsense. I for one do not want to be a tool for the merchants of death.

Once again the libs are whining the loudest because Fred will mop the floor with Hitlery Clinton.  Just confirms who they fear the most.

If you want to muck up the constitution with amendments, just move to Great Britain.  Immediate gratification;  Personal gun ownership is next to impossible, everyone is filmed, tracked and controlled.  Cost of living is astronomical.  Sounds great.... not!

How many of you crazy republicans believe in the war on Iraq??? How many of you crazies do not REALIZE not believe but REALIZE 9/11 was a set-up by Bush?!?!All you crazies should just all go down to good old Texas and in about 10 years you can fall of the deep in into the Gulf with your crazy redneck George.

Where I'm from if you buy a gun at a gun show you still get the background check if you buy from a dealer.  If you buy from a person you don't same as putting an ad in the paper.  Something you people seem to forget there was a 7 day waitng period in my state, before the Brady bill, now its only 5 min. That worked out good for you gun grabbers.

You can't have my Guns, Thompson/Hunter in 08. Say what you want. I have no police record and I am a gun owner. Even if the goverment could take all of our guns, there would still be just as many crimes done with guns. Ask Austrila how they are doing.

I think most people should be allowed to own guns, however there should be some restrictions on certain types of guns, where one can buy them and what type of weapon it is. What is so wrong with having a license issue after a thorough background check. If someone has nothing to hide than what is the problem with that. After all, I do not want a mental case buying a bunch of semi-auto rifles by just saying "I need them for hunting, etc"  

For whomever referenced the VA tech killing rampage, it might have been a different story for the VA Tech psycho if somebody else on campus had a gun to stop the psycho from killing innocent people. If more upstanding citizens carried weapons, it would keep more criminals in check. Anybody can do the research and discover that the cities that allow it's citizens to carry guns have the lowest crime rates.

I find the discussion to be healthy on control. I must however throw in my point of view as well. The average citizen should be able to own guns. I also think the background check is a very reasonable thing, and should continue. The waiting time for purchasing is also a sound idea. I wish it were not neccessary to do either, but unfortunately it is. Previous blogers are right in that the criminals & the crazies apparently seem to find a way to get guns no matter what are laws and restrictions say. What bothers me however is that many people seem to think that taking the guns out of the hands of hunters, and regular law abiding citizens is the answer. That in itself is nuts! We have the right to have guns for protection and it is guarded by our constitution. Why do some folks seem to think everything just will go away if they take all guns off the market etc. Believe me, it won't go away. Crime will still exist, crazies will still get guns, people will still die needlessly. But the only difference will be that the good citizens who try to live by our countries laws will be the "DEAD" ones! Nope, let's not go there in this great nation. I hope our lawmakers are listening.

Carol Dutton: Standing for our rights!

Fred is right!  Thompson in 2008!
BTW, I don't recall LBJ declaring war.  

We should in no way abridge the rights originally afforded, but twenty-first century technology and complexity, undreamed of in the eighteenth century, demands clarification and better definitions of the rights for today.  If a shoulder-mounted nuclear delivery system is developed, and I can afford it, should I be able to get it under my Constitutional rights?  If the answer is no, then there IS a line to draw at the type of weaponry that should be available to citizens.  This means that a central question to this debate should be: where in the pantheon of current technology should that line be drawn.  The "slippery slope" argument gets weaker as the guns get stronger.  The rights never change, but the applications are and should always be fluid. Is the line at the rocket launcher or at the thirty-ought-six?  That, it seems to me, is the crux of the debate.  

Hey Reg, you should run for office. No candidate is more long-winded saying nothing than you. Really, get yourself an agent, you have a talent for mindless rambling that would surely get you a job in government or at Jiffy Lube.

ok heres the deal, what the hell are all u damn yankes pissin and moanin about u peaple dont care(or know) that this very country you call home and the food on your table comes from a gun in 1774 when the American Revolution was kickin off we didnt have gun makers so the people brought there own if we didnt own guns how the hell do you expect to defend you family,country and your self? answer that one yankie boy the beef that you eat? that cow gets shot with a .38 cal pistol round through a long tube called a gun well ther you go. i only now that because i worked for a freind over the summer in a cattle processing plant and was the one who went around and shot the cow so back to what i was sayin, if there are no guns in our homes than there are crookes on the streets with knives and other things tryin to kill you and i dont know about you but if there are 3 guys tryin to kill me with a knife than i get to use my shot gun to blow a hole im 'em biger than a feild of blue bonnets so..... THE HELL WITH GUN CONTROL!!!

In reading all the comments in this 'thread', I've noticed where people are from.  It's a fact, people from mostly metropolitan areas see a great many things differently than someone from rural areas or areas where the overall lifestyle of the people is different.  While I'm sure there are some that exist, there's probably not a lot of hunters in New York, and in the same vein, while there may be an appreciable amount of conversation and concern for gay people to have the right to marry in New York, I'm betting there is few to no people at all in Wyoming who are actually concerned with this.

No one demographic group should be able to specify what is or is not a right or freedom for everyone in the country.

One of the problems we have in this country, (amongst the bazillion of them) is that unique little thing called "political correctness". It barely existed when I was growing up, but it sure is in full swing now and in itself as a concept does indeed infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of everyone, including the jerks because of whom the concept evolved.

Because of this 'phenomena' (I use the term with disgust), we have children more out of control than they ever have been because their parents can't control them. We have parents that are still expected to control their kids unable to because they have no tools whatsoever with which to do it.  We have parents getting arrested for spanking their children when they act up because someone who was fool enough to believe that "it takes a village" crap decided indeed that they should stick their nose in someone else's business. Any adult with normal common sense can tell the difference between disciplining a child and abusing a child, but normal common sense has given way to 'political correctness'.  If parents were still allowed to discipline their kids and there weren't so many Dr. Idiots out there experimenting with social engineering, Columbine and Virginia Tech would never have happened.

The guns didn't stand up and fire themselves, the dysfunctional kids fired them.  If these people were hell bent on killing their fellow students, they would have accomplished this without guns, and possibly in an even more horrendous and indiscriminate manner...like 3,000 pound vehicles, poisoned water supplies or explosives.  On the other hand, if some of their fellow students had been armed, I'd guarantee fewer people would have died on those sad days.

When I was a kid, it was unthinkable that any kid might bring a gun to school to hurt someone.  However, at this same time, I'll bet half the student body of my high school did indeed have a gun.  In the rifle racks in their trucks or under the seat of their cars, etc.  Never once was their a murder because of this.  However, in New York City, where possession of a handgun is a crime, violent crime is rampant with, you guessed it, guns. Why is this? Because the only people that New York City took guns away from were the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.  I can't even call it a 'noble idea' because it wasn't... it was just stupid. The ONLY thing restricting gun ownership of law abiding citizens does is make less law abiding citizens from the people who won't give them up, and make everyone easier targets of criminals.

Our Constitution has been studied every bit that it can be, but the 2nd amendment IS pretty simple to understand.  As stated by others in this thread, there are no 'qualifiers', it's not vague at all.  Nothing about for 'hunting purposes' or 'sporting'.  All of this was common sense, and the 2nd amendment was written for the exact reason that the Founders had already experienced what life was like when they didn't have the right to own a firearm.  The British restricted them several times in various colonies for the exact reason that they didn't want an armed farmer taking a shot at the British soldiers that had just robbed him or raped his daughter.  

The 2nd amendment was put there so that the citizens could protect themselves, whether that be against criminals or, unfortunately, a tyrannical ruling government.

The bottom line when it comes to 'rights' and 'liberties' is simple, because so many people believe anyone who doesn't see things the way they do is wrong and should be forced into it.  Gay people getting married doesn't affect my marriage to my wife at all, so why shouldn't two people who are sharing their lives and responsibilities have the piece of paper that says their married along with the benefits that a man and woman who are married have?  I have the right to believe in any religion I want or no religion at all, and as long as my beliefs don't hurt someone else, nobody can tell me I'm wrong.  Yet we have religious zealots thinking that they somehow could know the mind of a deity, and that said deity doesn't want gay people to marry.  We have people who hate abortion that want to give more rights to an unborn fetus than they would the woman who is carrying it, all because they supposedly know the mind of their god.  Don't you think that a god could quite easily correct such a malfunction if it was so inclined?  I loath abortion as a form of birth control, but no way in hell I have the right to tell another person what they can or can't do with their own body.

Finally, we have politically correct people who think that if America was disarmed that it would be a safer place, when endless statistics prove that to not be the case.  There isn't really a need (unless you live in New York City and some other places like it) to actually force people to have guns, but taking them from people only accomplishes making them easier prey with no means to defend themselves.  Taking them from all of us only means we have no way of defending ourselves from criminals who don't obey the laws we do, and no way of defending ourselves from a government which may decide at some point that it is no longer "of the people, for the people, and by the people".

People need to quit trying to force others into seeing things their way, and that includes the rest of the world. If what you think and do doesn't harm others, then have at it.  I don't have to like it.

By the way, Britain is now considering a ban on ownership of knives because there is just as much violent crime in Britain now as there was before they banned gun ownership, it's just that now the killings are done with knives instead of guns.  Anyone seen the aftermath of a knife attack?  If I had to choose, I'd rather be shot any day. (Google it)

Since there seems to be so much disagreemant on how the constitution should be interpeted and what changes should or should not be made then lets just abolish it all together. That way the government can start all over and " do it right this time". That solution should appeal to alaot of the folks that I see commenting here on this forum.

As time goes by, cultures change. The reason we have our constitution in the first place was to separate US from the dictatorships of other countries. What caused US to break away from England in the first place was taxation without representation. I agree that special interest has quite a hand in everything that goes on in the congress now days. On top of that politicans doing whatever it takes to get elected to office. There are some good politicans out there, but when they get into office they have no idea of the "good ole boy" politics out there. I'll pat your back if you pat mine. I agree with most of the comments stated, "If we would just enforce the Laws we have we really don't need to modify them." Criminals will always be able to illegally get firearms. Let US not enfringe on constitutional rights. It has gotten to where the criminals have more rights than the victims they have inflicted pain on. When the Law abiding people in this country finally stand up to be counted, thats when this country will finally be RIGHT.  

Does no one remember why we have the 2nd Amendment? The Bill of Rights is a set of checks and balances established between the government and the people, just like checks and balances were incorporated between the three governmental branches. The right to bear arms makes us citizens in a free society. Taking that right away makes us subjects of the government.  

WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS TO ULTIMATELY DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, SHOULD THEY TURN TO TYRANNY AND SEEK TO OPPRESS US.

Our government "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." What if we withdraw our consent? Vote them out, you say? What if they suspend our civil rights entirely, including elections? Oppressed societies all over the world, past and present, share a commonality: the people were stripped of the means to fight back, placed under complete government control and totally dependent on the government for basic needs. Look around you in today's America: Could YOU survive without electricity, water, food or gas? What would stop them from denying us those basic needs if we are helpless and dependent on them? Don't say it can't happen; it can.

GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS ON GUN OWNERSHIP WILL NOT PREVENT CRIMINALS FROM GETTING GUNS. It should be obvious that only law-abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals will commit crimes with or without guns, and can always get guns if they want them. Is a knife less deadly? Are we going to ban knives or require they be registered? Weapons are too easy to get, make or improvise. A cast-iron skillet or high-heeled shoe can be deadly, too.

GUN CONTROL DOES NOT REDUCE CRIME. In fact, it leads to an increase in violent crime, as criminals are assured of helpless, unarmed victims.

Accidental shootings are a problem, but many stem from the way many in our society view guns. How many people give their toddlers toy guns that look real? How do they know the difference between a toy and a real gun if they play with guns as toys? We mandate driver's ed before licensing teens to drive, though tens of thousands of them die each year in traffic accidents. Why don't they learn about gun safety? In areas where guns are common, most kids learn basic firearms safety early on. Older kids are taught more advanced firearms safety and routinely use guns. I personally grew up like that, and wouldn't dream of pointing a gun at another human being except in self defense where no other viable options existed.

This is a tough issue, but the mentality of "take the guns away and the problem will go away" is sheer insanity. Trusting the government to protect us is absolute, raving lunacy.

I fully support Mr. Thompson. He has demonstrated a deep understanding of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Visit his website and listen to his explanation of the principle of federalism. It was a great idea in 1785, and an even better one today. He is genuine in his desire to restore our rights, reduce the burden of government, and strengthen America. I've seen his movies: he isn't THAT good an actor, and I deeply mistrust politicians in general.

Off topic, does anyone know WHY the American flag isn't supposed to touch the ground? Like so much vital American history, our schools don't teach it anymore. The attack on Fort Henry, witnessed by Francis Scott Key, the rampart where the flag flew mercilessly targeted. At dawn's first light, the flag was still there, held up by the bodies of patriots. Each time it was struck, a patriot picked it up. Even knowing they would be killed by the next salvo, they refused to yield to tyranny. You see, the British demanded that we take down the flag or they would destroy Fort Henry. We refused. Francis Scott Key watched the attack from a British ship, and recorded the event, immortalized in our National Anthem. You will never hear the Star Spangled Banner or see the American flag the same way.

We should be proud of who we are and where we came from. We must remember that there are people who wish to destroy America, and they are both foreigners and citizens. Some even call themselves U.S. Congressmen or Supreme Court Justices. The threat from within is as real and imminent as the threat from abroad.

Todd Tracy: "we should make that choice based on the time we are living in now, not our founding fathers.  (You know, I never hear anybody invoking the 3rd amendment? why, because it's obsolete)."

Huh,  maybe you should look up Engblom v. Carey 1982, I found it rather easily in a quick search. Rarely used, yes. Obsolete? not hardly.

We already have a killer in chief..do we need a freddy too! ugh!

You'll be happy to know the Bush administration has been hard at work abridging the others.

Oh, Please........we have the right to bear arms; and when the Constitution was written, those people bearing arms were considerably more responsible. If a person violated the moral responsibilities inherent in using those weapons - they were dealt with under the law. Just as it should be today. Let's not get carried away with "changing the Constitution" (as opposed to adding to it)........while we are living in 'different times'...shall we also amend the Bible to suit our own needs?

Jeez guys and gals....who is drinking the koolaid here?  You idiots think you can just go into a gun show and walk out with a gun?  Are you crazy?  Go to a gun show and try it.  You will find out real quick you will have to have a background check.  Like the earlier person posting, enforce the current laws and quit trying to change the laws our founding fathers gave us.  Here you got someone who wants to amend the constitution for today.......with the nut cases we have in Congress.....no way.  Our founding fathers had it right and did it right and those laws still stand true today.  Next thing you will want is a new constitution each presidential cycle.  Leave my guns alone.  Go after the criminal.  He/she is the problem.  Oh, by the way.........Go FRED!!!

According to a report in the Denver Post, Special Reprint, Sunday Supplement, "Utah: Inside The Church State," Nov. 21-28, 1982, The 1975 Utah Supreme Court handed down a decision that the First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution is a limitation on our federal government, but the GUARANTEES OF FREEDOM of speech, of religion, of assembly, of the press DID NOT APPLY to Utah.

How does/can that happen in the U.S.?

I'M ONE FOR OWNING A GUN OR RIFLE AND ONE'S RIGHTS. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE SHOULD BE GUN CONTROLS. OTHER THAN THESE TWO TYPES OF GUNS THERE'S NO REASON FOR OWNING ANYTHING OTHER. ALSO WHERE'S THE 'NRA' WHEN PEOPLE ARE BEING SHOT UP IN SCHOOLS AND WORK PLACES OR IN THE STREETS.

Does anyone actually believe any republican is that interested in upholding ALL of the constitution? The way they all swagger about trying to out rambo each other on terrorism they have all said they would suspend large portions of the constitution to make us all "safer"...better keep those guns hidden so you can protect yourselves from a republcian government...

EG - That's a different scenario then.  If you have already gone through the waiting period and the background check, then fine - go buy your gun.  

As far as not needing to wait 3 days, I disagree.  If you are that fearful for your life, call the police.  Stay with friends or family.  Lock yourself in your apartment and don't answer the door until your 3 days are up.  There are other options besides arming yourself with a gun.  

Let's see.... do I support Fred who wants to keep government out of our lives or do I support Hillary who wants government controlling every aspect of our lives. Easy choice if you love freedom!

Boy, a lot of you people really don’t get it!  During the 20th Century, it wasn’t terrorists or organized crime who murdered the most civilians on this planet, it was GOVERNMENTS who killed the largest number of people.  Further, very strict gun control (or outright gun bans) preceded the most notorious cases of governmental abuse, as happened in Ottoman Turkey, Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia.  These are historical facts that cannot be disputed.

In addition, those of you who whip out the tired old argument regarding the type of firearms available during the Founding Father’s time (and how guns are much more powerful now, etc.) are also giving up your First Amendment rights.  Let me explain:  By your half-brain theory, only those rights employing technology that existed during colonial times would be protected.  Therefore, since radio, television, the internet, and other telecommunications devices didn’t exist back then, they must not be protected now, since they are so much more “powerful” forms of communication.

If you read the Federalist Papers you will never again be able to claim (with a straight face) that the Founding Fathers did not intend to protect the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.

Seething - Perhaps the founding fathers did intend for it to be an individual right.  But that does not necessarily mean that they intended it to be an unfettered right.  The First Amendment doesn't mention such things as obscenity, fighting words or time, place and manner restrictions - and yet, those have been routinely upheld by the Court as being consistent with the First Amendment's freedom of speech.  

Even assuming that the framers intended for individuals to have the right to bear arms, the Constitution does not state that this right is to be absolute.

Carrie:  Waiting periods are gun control folly.  A waiting period to acquire a firearm has never been shown to actually reduce violent crime (the ostensible purpose of all gun control laws).  This is why many of the states that used to have waiting periods have repealed them.  Do you believe that a waiting period would be appropriate before exercising one of your other civil rights?  I doubt it.

Like many gun control laws, waiting periods sound good, but under actual, empirical study we learn that they don’t reduce crime.  If there is no benefit to public safety, then we should not infringe on the ability of law-abiding Americans to exercise their rights.

I especially like the previous quote about...
"Guns, Frats and Bud"  (Two of the three are personal favorites of mine.)  
But if this person had any clue about laws governing CCW permits s/he would know that unless the Frat property was owned by the university or they have posted signs people with CCW permit can already carry there legally. (Though it would be illegal to carry while intoxicated.) So where are the bodies?  Where are the shoot outs at the keg line?
Maybe it's just that people who take the time to get a CCW and accept that responsibility are overwhelming law abiding and responsible people.  

RON PAUL 2008

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):