Thompson lauds gun rights

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:51:35 GMT

I wonder if the "rest of the Constitution" includes Habeas Corpus, the fourth amendment, or Congress's sole right to declare war.

Oh that's right, it doesn't... not to Fred, Rudy, McCain, or Romney, unless any of them want to correct me on that...

(crickets)

Thompson lauds gun rights

nuanced — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:57:47 GMT

What a joker! His wife will be a better first lady than Bill Clinton. He's killing me and he'll kill more if elected.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Flat-earther, Georgia — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:09:52 GMT

Fred the entertainer; clown, joker, quisling.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Blue state baby — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:12:50 GMT

Boy that Fred is so funny. What a joker!

Thompson lauds gun rights

TS — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:12:50 GMT

there's another Georgie deep inside.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Pat, Huntington, NY — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:25:03 GMT

Gee, according to logic of this nut job, the kid who went on the killing rampage in VA Tech. had every right to get his gun despite being a mental case, because according to Thompson, there should be zero regulations from getting guns at gun shows and he could've gotten his gun there, as can any other mental case. This whole 2nd amendment obsession just amazes me!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:56:27 GMT

Government should not restrict the rights of citizens at gun shows. What exactly does that mean? No background checks? No waiting periods? No ID? Want a gun - here, have one!

I absolutely support a person's right to own a gun for hunting purposes. I also support a person's right to own a gun for self-defense, or to defend their family. In both situations, I cannot conceive of a need to not follow the proper channels. As far as I am concerned, anyone that cannot wait 3 days for a gun and cannot present proper identification for a gun does not need to have a gun.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Jack, Olympia, WA — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:25:18 GMT

Right, I think those who run their mouths about any designer cause they have should be required to wait three days and/or have the government "bless" their words--after all words have caused more riots than guns,...hummmm

Thompson lauds gun rights

Shawn Bartz, Clarkston, MI — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:33:32 GMT

As I expected, no one here really gets it. There's no clause or qualifier in the Second Amendment that states "for hunting purposes" or "for self defense". When it was written, as it is now, these things, among others, were taken for granted as being the just and legal uses for one's firearms. Therefore, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc., have always been and will always be illegal. Those who commit gun crimes should be prosecuted and incarcerated, but gun ownership is not a crime. It is the complete opposite. It is the right of average citizens (you know, We The People) to use those arms to protect themselves and their communities, to put food on their tables, and to defend their nation. These truths are as self-evident now as they were then.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Michael, La Quinta Ca. — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:38:08 GMT

You are all pretty funny! You scream and yell anytime the goverment messes with your cival liberties, but to hell with gun owners constitutional rights. Give me a break.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:58:17 GMT

What would help curb violence is TRUE punishment for offenders. Make prison time hell on earth and bring back cruel and unusual punishment to these gang bangers and outlaws.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Tom, Titusville, FL — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:59:41 GMT

You jokers crack me up. You want to restrict one of our Constitutional rights, but yell when others are restricted.

Those who want more restrictions on my second amendment rights, how about if we require journalists to have licenses, so we make sure that they report on interviews they actually conduct or documents whose veracity they actually check?

For those who want only their pet freedoms protected, how about actual freedom of religion (the freedom to express your religion as you like) rather than the militant freedom from religion that we have now?

When you make any rights conditional, you dimish all of our rights.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Nicholas, Minneaps, MN — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:01:05 GMT

nuanced: I like you posts. I don't always agree with them, but they are generally solid and insightful. You struck gold yet again.

Thompson lauds gun rights

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:04:52 GMT

All of this posturing is meaningless theatrics. what the most obvious requirement is, is that we need change! Change from a focus on benefiting Special Interests and a select few, who then return financial support and powerful overt and covert backing, while the majority receives only apathy, the costs, the problems and a lot of subterfuge. Change from being led with arrogance and self-indulgence while they belligerently do what they want with an in-your-face attitude. Change from dishonesty and from using their offices and America’s resources for their own purposes. Yes, I feel very strong about this but I think that is understandable.
Who will the American people pick? Well there is Fred Thompson who I see as probably the ideal pick for those who want 'more of the same'. He appears as the candidate who has consistently demonstrated throughout his political and professional career that he can be directed, follow a script and focus on what others want while taking what they give. His history tells the story. Then there is Rudy Giuliani who I see as also being very capable of subordinating himself and of, like Fred, being the next ‘puppet’ for Special Interests. Actually all of the Republican Party scares me as I have seen their blind loyalty and support for the current administration, as if they are owned, intimidated and controlled. You almost expect to see them all standing at attention as they get their orders. John McCain clearly demonstrates this concern when in 2004 he abandoned being the conscientious and independent Republican he was to become the dutiful and submissive Bush backer.
Then there are the Democrats and I’m just not a real Hillary Clinton fan. I simply find her hard to trust, no matter what she says (actually that is quite true of all of them), and then I see her as being another sociopathic personality (like the one we have in office now only not so controlled by others). Observing her in action, especially when she doesn’t realize the camera is on her, leaves me feeling that we are never presented the true person. I like a lot of what Barack Obama says and John Edwards is interesting but I really need to know more about each of them.
Very likely, when all is said and done, I will just vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is as I just don’t want ‘more of the same’ and as I see it, the Republicans can’t be trusted to be different. That comes from someone who was a long term registered Republican. In 2003 I had just seen enough and changed my registration from ‘Republican’ to ‘Undeclared’ but actually before voting against George W. I hadn’t voted for a Democrat since John F. Kennedy.
Keep in mind that through all of this I have said, ‘as I see’ which indicates I believe it is all very subjective. The only real recommendation I will ever make is that it needs to be totally subjective and that really means individual, not led by anyone else. It really needs to be done with objectivity which can’t be achieved without putting all of our biases aside. Whenever we are connected to something, when we have a bias, we are vulnerable to being manipulated, to being led and misled. In the last two presidential elections we have vividly witnessed very strong and successful efforts to appeal to people’s biases and to manipulate people by those biases. I suspect today that there are a great many who wish they hadn’t been so gullible in 2000 or 2004. Remember, you can’t put any faith in anything the candidates say and especially not in what their third-party ‘hired guns’ say. And the problem really isn’t being gullible; it is simply about our really thinking for ourselves. It shouldn’t be about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal or Christian vs. non-Christian or about them being a woman or being black. They really like to use those labels because once you accept the label, you’re hooked and they can then manipulate you. Hopefully this time it will end up being who the American people really pick and not again someone who was creatively and deceptively pushed through. [Sorry about the length of this, it just spilled out.]

Thompson lauds gun rights

Jon — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:06:36 GMT

I am all for the right to own firearms. I do not think the government--state or federal should restrict the rights of our citizens any more than they have. I have no problem with a background check if you want to go to a gun store or sports shop to buy a firearm--that said, I do not believe that the right to purchase a firearm should be restricted or infringed upon if you purchase that firearm at a gun show. You see--what everyone forgets--criminals will ALWAYS have firearms--it is the law abiding citizens who NEED them and should be allowed to carry them in public, openly if so desired. I think the government should keep its nose out of our right to carry a firearm.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Mark, Silverton OR — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:09:46 GMT

Well, I see the brainwashed left-wing morons are out today. Get something straight embiciles: Gun control is not about controlling guns; it's about controlling people.
You left-wing brainwashed idiots cannot even see your Democrat party selling you out to a 12-20 million illegal alien amnesty.
Federalist, that is people that believe in the Constitution and understand it, candidates really work you left-wingers up and scare the hell out of you. If that was not the case, you wouldn't waste your time your time blogging.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Todd Tracy, Portland, OR — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:10:25 GMT

Go Fred!!! You got my vote... Red states will win again!!!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Todd Tracy, Portland, OR — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:11:55 GMT

Go Fred!!! You got my vote... Red states will win again!!!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Castor Ramirez, Garden Grove, CA — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:16:27 GMT

This whole "gun" thing makes me sick. You have extremists, from both sides, trying to make their case either for or against gun control. If only we could have the existing laws enforced then a lot of people would not be able to get guns that shouldn't have them.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Nicholas, Minneaps, MN — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:23:39 GMT

Shawn Bartz: It is our duty to continually better our country by amending the constitution. History and the living situation is much different now than the living situation was in 1787. My point, maybe we, as a society, want complete freedom to own a gun, but 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). Same thing with gay marriage. The Constitution does not specify what a marriage is but that doesn't stop those on the social right from attempting to change it by adding an amendment. I don't agree with the policy, but the capability is very real and should reflect life today.

Todd Tracy: Isn't Oregon blue?

Thompson lauds gun rights

Nicholas, Minneaps, MN — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:23:39 GMT

Thompson lauds gun rights

Bruce, NV — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:28:05 GMT

That pesky 2nd amendment. While we're abridging it, let's abridge others. Let's see, just for the hell of it, howbout the 1st, 5th, 9th, 12th and 17th? And especially the 21st?

Thompson lauds gun rights

Mark, Silverton OR — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:42:50 GMT

Let's see, how many people are killed each year by drunk drivers?
How many people were killed by terrorists flying planes?
How many people die each year from knife wounds.
Perhaps we should have a mandatory three day waiting period and background checks on every person buying a car, an airline ticket, and cutlery.
You brainwashed left-wing morons. The Democrats dumbied down education so they could create the mindless, illogical, unable to think class of idiots of which you are clearly a part of. Try to come up with a legitimate argument for your facist left-wing b u l l s h i t.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Jeff Dranetz, Weymouth, MA — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:10:40 GMT

congress may have the right to declare war, but the President has the right to wage it where he sees fit. We are a republic, modeled after Roman republic, not a Democracy modeled after acient Athens. War requires quick reaction, not to be babled on in committee. That how Britain lost the initiative in the battle for Norway in 1940. By the time the British got there, the Germans held all the high ground. Our President is more akin to a consul of Rome, than a Prime Minister. His cabinet members act on his orders, not on their own like in a parlimentary democracy where you have ministers of opposing parties. The War Powers act hinders the role of Commander-in-chief, and should be recinded. That way the President doesn't have to pursuade a public and congress who are ignorant of the importance of strategic goals. The location of Iraq is important to us to influence the whole area. It provides a port to supply and over land attack on Iran. Being there, Iran tends to take us more seriously. Besides, Saddam was a mass murderer. People ask, well why only Saddam? I do remember the Clinton administration sending troops to change governments in Somalia and the Balkans. Milsosovich falls in to the same catagory. He was deposed, then tried, but died before a verdict in the Hague.

Thompson lauds gun rights

R.Merrell — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:12:05 GMT

Thompson's also on record for favoring allowing college students to carry firearms. Now isn't that a good idea! Just when you thought it might be pretty safe for your son or daughter to go to a weekend fraternity or sorority party-where there just might be a little alcohol - you can feel comforted in knowing everyone is armed. Sounds like a great combination: Guns, fraternities, and Bud. Fred's sure right on top of the common sense thing. Almost, but not quite as scary as Bush.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Theo Columbus OHio — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:13:45 GMT

Any other person than Hillary the Hysterical!

Her threat to terrorist is that she will frown and shake her finger at them. Yikes!

Do nothin' Dems on the prowl again!
Isn't this how we got to today's war any how? Clinton's refused to take the threats seriously in the 1990's, so Bin Laden thought ALL American were as spineless as the Clinton clan?

So let's do a repeat, then maybe Bin Laden will accumulate even worse weapons of mass destruction on New York City!
How stupid.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Lisa - Fort Worth TX — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:18:09 GMT

As an American who supports legal gun ownership, I just wish the proponents of second amendment rights would be just as upset with infringement of the other rights we have--right to free speech and habeas corpus to name a couple. I really think you're a hypocrite if you think no restrictions should be placed on gun purchases, but you have no problem with the government restricting our right to say what is on our minds.

Thompson lauds gun rights

CRAIG IN MINNEAPOLIS — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:18:45 GMT

BUSH AND THOMPSON SUCK.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Charles Corley, Morrow,Ga. 30260 — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:25:12 GMT

Voted for Goldwater and Clinton twice. Member of the Ga. Guard for 8 yrs. My daddy bought me a 410 shotgun for my 12th b.d. which was on 4-14-47. I lived in city of Atlanta and shot 7 squirrels that afternoon in woods behind my house. Gun safty should be required in H.S. but it's 4 and 5 year olds who kill themselves with guns and that is the reason I gave my 410 to my brother (who died putting up a dear stand at age 67). Of all the things America has on it's plate the nra seems un-necessary. It would be nice if Fred would mention his daughter who died on the street. The one he had abandoned. Thanks for your time and patience with me.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Susan Sheldon, Alamosa, Colorado — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:32:55 GMT

The only purpose for the 2nd Amendment was that we the people could rise up in armed revolt against our Government if they should become totalitarian or oppress our rights. It was the only Amendment that the Founding Fathers felt was so important that they would not accept the Constitution without it. They knew that if the wrong people got control of our country they could reverse all the freedom they had worked so hard to achieve. That does not mena anyone who supports the rights of the people under the Constitution, believe that anyone can get a gun and kill people. But lets be honest, even with gun control laws now on the books, people still get the guns.
As to who we should put in office, STUPID AMERICANS< WE ARE NOT A TWO PARTY SYSTEM< WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS RUNNING FOR OFFICE< THE PRESS AND THE PEOPLE RESTRICT FREE SPEECH AND OUR ACCESS TO NON REPUBLICANS AND NON DEMONCRATS.. All we have now is an insider trade.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Mike, Hermosa Beach — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:36:31 GMT

Americans expecting a candidate genuinely committed to the full complement of civil liberties recognized by the Bill of Rights have one choice: Ron Paul.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:55:50 GMT

Shawn - You forgot part of the Second Amendment. Here it is in its entirety: 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 don't think the Framers intended for a 12 year old to be able to buy an Uzi at a gun show. Just a hunch, though.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:11:19 GMT

I am a strict constructionalist when it comes to the second amendment; the right to bear arms should protect all firearms available at the time of the Constitution's ratification, because protecting ALL arms would mean private citizens have a Constitutional right to bazookas and nuclear warheads; when one considers that scenario, clearly what the founding fathers envisioned was based on the technology available at the time.

Thompson lauds gun rights

jim — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:04:19 GMT

I thought the constitution "is not a suicide pact?" I guess they meant all parts of the constitution that I don't like (i.e., everything except the 2nd Amendment) is not a suicide pact. The 2nd Amendment is a "suicide pact" -- you know, my "cold dead hands" and all that.

The 2nd Amendment is just as important as the other amendments; however, by judging the value that most on the Right place on all the others, that means the 2nd Amendment is worthless and should be thrown out because the scary Terrorists are coming to kill your children.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Shawn Bartz, Clarkston, MI — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:22:17 GMT

Nicholas: I'm sorry, but I have to completely disagree with your premise. While we all should be continually striving to improve our nation, it must be done within the framework of the Constitution. This document is the rock upon which our nation is built, and that foundation must be solid, or our entire civilization collapses. No part of it is ever obsolete (the Third Amendment, although never invoked, is still an effective hedge against tyranny). Even though some mis-steps have been taken (Prohibition, which was repealed, and the Income Tax, which should be), the Founders deliberately made the amendment process difficult, and it's a process that needs to be taken seriously. It was designed that way to avoid amendments on a whim, so our sacred and unalienable rights can't be trampled by whoever is in the majority. That's why we live in a representative Republic, not a Democracy. The Founders knew pure Democracy was just a tyranny of the majority. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of all the people, popular and unpopular views alike. To say it needs to be continually amended to "keep up with the times" shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what the document actually is and what it actually means. Restricting or prohibiting firearms ownership is always the first step toward totalitarian rule. You disarm the population so they can no longer resist. After that, all other rights can merely be cast aside. Why do you think the British were marching to Lexington and Concord? Because they were ordered to confiscate the Colonists' guns.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Greg Benton, Sun City, AZ. — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:18:10 GMT

Hey Reg, east valley,AND ALL THE REST OF YOU,

RON PAUL - RON PAUL - RON PAUL - RON PAUL - RON PAUL

Ron Paul is our last hope. The only American running for President. The rest are Bolsheviks or Nazi's.

Thompson lauds gun rights

straight up /az — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:52:28 GMT

My Wednesday , open broad day light a police officer gunned down when stopping a J-walker. A J-Walker who was a wanted felon,, Illegal, returned deporter. Yes, better arm today as the Mexican invasion continues, The no longer trickle across the border,, they are trucked in and dumped a safe houses..

At some point there will be a major confrontation. Will you be able to defend your home and family. The varmits of yesterday had four legs and today they have two!!!

Thompson lauds gun rights

EG — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:09:36 GMT

To Carrie, Eastern Iowa:

I can easily conceive of a reason why a person would not want to wait three days to purchase a gun. Simply put, circumstances arise which cause an individual to deem it necessary to purchase a gun for self defense. Perhaps one decided he needs a second gun, or a larger gun, or a different type of gun. Here in Georgia, any resident whom posesses a carry permit can purchase a gun with no wait, no background check. ( the background check and wait period has been observed in acquiring the permit )

Thompson lauds gun rights

J. E. Buckley, Silver City, NM — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:21:44 GMT

Those who are wanting to restrict gun show transations have probably never been to one. Most gun show vendors hold a FFL and as such must conduct
background checks. Only individuals who do not hold a FFL can sell weapons to another individual without a background check. And, guess what, that is the same outside a gun show...look in the classified ads.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Marcia Gaines, Seattle, WA — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:24:35 GMT

I enjoy how people conveniently forget what the 2nd Amendment actually states. The 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee the right to bear arms - it guarantees the right to bear arms for the purpose of having a well-regulated militia.

The Amendment reads: "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."

By my book that pretty much means that if you're not a member of the defense forces for your state or nation - that you're not guaranteed a right to own a gun.

Thompson lauds gun rights

nuanced — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:52:18 GMT

Thanks Nicholas, Minneaps, MN
Sometimes I feel we should just agree to disagree and have some fun.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Julian Gill, Greenbrier, Ar — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:53:53 GMT

Again the mainstream media has given you Fred, Hillary, and Giuliani, with no mention of Mike Huckabee. What are you all afraid of? There is no stronger backer of the second amendment than Huckabee, period. If you want a president that will reunite Americans and bring her back to greatness, Mike Huckabee is the only candidate to fit the bill. I dare you to take a serious look at this candidate. You won't find him in the Mainstream media though,you will have to dig. Do a google search on Mike Huckabee for President and discover as alot of other Americans have a breath of fresh air.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Kevin Crawley — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:25:22 GMT

Our bill of rights are God given. Read the Federalist Papers and you will read the minds of our founding fathers.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Jay, Washington, DC — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:47:25 GMT

Isn't the individual's right to bear arms
superceded by the right to life. After all,
the founding fathers said the essential rights
are those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, the right to liberty becomes meaningless. its rendered moot.

People do have the right to bear arms. However,
without infringing upon this right, the government
can still make efforts to keep guns out of the
wrong hands.

If the state is to ensure the public's safety,
and protect the right to life, then it should
be able to review an individuals criminal and
mental health history before someone purchases a gun.

Whether or not most criminals acquire guns from
other sources, its hole in the system, and its a
hole which needs to be closed.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Guns don't kill people, bureaucracy kills people — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:16:16 GMT

Encroachment upon one's right to 'bear arms' should be tempered with a proper definition of 'arms'.

I would infer the intent was to provide for citizen ownership of firearms for hunting, sport and in times of crisis, defense of one's home.

I would futher infer that in the era in which the article was drafted, firearms level of destruction was limited to such items as long rifles and pistols. Would the interpretation in that day forbid the ownership of a field canon?

Obviously, one would assume you not hunt with such a caliber weapon but to scale to today's arguments, "it was a really BIG bear".

If we consider a field canon as a protected 'arm' under the constitution, why not argue for your right to own thermonuclear devices as well? I'm sure there are bigger bear out there you may need such a device for.

Gun ownership is a large responsibility for any person, requiring levelheadedness and most of all, common sense.

Wouldn't it then be common sense that a citizen in a country run by 'freely elected' representation has no need 'bear arms' that kill on a mass scale in a short duration? Why support the ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Trying to set a new record of 10 bear in 10 seconds? Shouldn't need to hunt for 2 or 3 winters now!

It could also be inferred that the purpose was to be properly armed in the event of national emergency; a citizen militia. Hmm.. I recall national defense starts at the National Guard and the other Armed Forces. Others interpret the need for the arms to protect themselves from the established government and if necessary, provide the common man a means to overthrow a failing, unjust rule. I say that's a bit underhanded given our belief in our democratic society (yes, we know that we still suffer from the choices made by the Electoral Colleges). Until that changes, your vote should be your weapon against what you see as an unfit governing body.

So.. we don't need a Mac-10 for pheasant hunting.. We are misguided if we think we can take our .50cal into the backyard and fire off a few rounds into some paper targets hanging on our neighbor's tree..and we certainly don't need a couple of Tomahawks in the hall closet to fend off the city fathers trying to evict me from my land so they can build an overpass on it.

So.. you call my interpretation extreme. As a gun owner, I see the basic needs I have which a firearm provides for 'needs' (my 12 gauge, unmodified, Mossberg shotgun works great for bird, deer, a few paper targets at my local gun range, and if necessary, protection of my wife and two daughters from some drug-crazed, Uzi wielding kid breaks in one night looking for something to sell to fund his habit).

Thompson lauds gun rights

Shawn Williams, Sevierville, Tenn. — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:11:43 GMT

I'm reading stuff on Thompson, and how all of the Republicans see him as the next Ronald Reagan. What I see is the next Richard Nixon. A sleazy politician who will do anything to get elected and support the GOP agenda.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Bruce Thomson, Rexville, NY. — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:07:56 GMT

Our forefathers drafted a constitution that states the "right to bear arms will not be infringed". Fine, but to what class of "arms" where these gentlemen referring when they penned this statement? Muzzle loaders, folks. Single shot, muzzle loading firearms where their sole frame of reference two centuries ago.

So, let's not "infringe" upon any citizen's right to owe a muzzle loader, no matter how nutty his or her fruitcake. But, for all other classes of firearms registration and a competent use demonstration are not merely in order, they are what a rational society would demand; especially, in this new age of terrorist activity.

Is that about to happen in the USA? Heavens, no. Our Conservative brethren are way too anachronistic and way too frightened for such rationality. They must have their guns, regardless, as Linus had to have his blanket.

It is little wonder that Bin Laden has expressed full confidence that the weaponry his soldiers will require for their next US operation will be readily obtained on the open market. No doubt, at one of "Freddie's" gun shows.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Andrew, Minneapolis — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:43:27 GMT

People tend to forget that the 2nd amendment refers to state-run militias, not specifically to individual citizens. The Founding Fathers were a lot more concerned that individual states had control over at least some of the military (as a balance against the federal government) than whether citizens were armed to defend themselves against criminals. That interpretation is more a matter of tradition and lower-court rulings than anything outright stated in the Constitution.

What's wrong with keeping crazies from buying guns? Or cracking down on the tiny percentage of gun dealers that supply 90% of guns criminals use? Nothing I can see.

Thompson lauds gun rights

jimmy, nashville< TN — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:42:25 GMT

why is freddy now talking about gun rights, or any rights? When he was senator he did not submitt one bill to amend any rights. He is as lame duck now as he was as a senator. He is a worthless piece of crap.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Dillon Godley, Vanceboro, NC — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:45:28 GMT

Gun ownership in itself is not the crime. The possession of firearms should not be inhibited. Rather, the question of firearm utilization is what should be navigated. The imposition of stronger deterrents against improper uses of firearms (e.g. murder) should be in place, not the banning and conditioning of Constitutional amendments. Those rights are plain and self-evident; therefore, tampering with them hurts the viability of future generations to have legal bases upon which to take action to defend their property and lives. Those such as Cho Seung-Hui and Dylan Klebold were manic killers who were set upon killing as many individuals as possible prior to facing the consequences for their own action... those criminal bastards cannot rationally be reined in and controlled by the rule of law when their sadistic desires get in the way. However, most criminals are weak in constitution, which makes them conducive to having their convictions swayed by greater degrees of punishment. Thus, greater deterrents against improper firearm usage, at least in my humble-though-caustic opinion, would serve society far more effectively than gun control.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Jim Snyder, Daingerfield,Texas — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:18:05 GMT

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

Thompson lauds gun rights

svanur thordarson, Redondo Beach, CA. — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:46:43 GMT

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. ???$$$

Thompson lauds gun rights

Brian, Las Vegas — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:59:15 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

rnd — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:17:04 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

MIKE NOURY, SANFORD, MAINE — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:08:14 GMT

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?

Thompson lauds gun rights

Estuar, Paso Robles CA — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:09:18 GMT

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?
:-)

Thompson lauds gun rights

Dan plymouth nh — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:33:26 GMT

Crimes committed by registered gun owners is under 1%.

Taking guns away will only drive up crime rate.

Thompson lauds gun rights

R. Thompson — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:30:32 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Pro gun, Southeast PA — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:39:34 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Hugh Davis, Russellville, AR — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:58:35 GMT

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

Thompson lauds gun rights

Tim, Wichita, KS — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:01:51 GMT

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).

Thompson lauds gun rights

William Johnson, Decarur, Alabama — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:21:34 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Tamara, Grand Rapids, MI — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:23:04 GMT

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...

Thompson lauds gun rights

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:23:21 GMT

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

Thompson lauds gun rights

Las Vegas Nevada — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:35:54 GMT

Fred Heads!!!!! UNITE!!

Thompson lauds gun rights

W. The Moore, Houston Texas — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:52:35 GMT

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"

Thompson lauds gun rights

MARTY MOO — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:58:58 GMT

WAY TO GO. BUSH SUCKS

Thompson lauds gun rights

Tom Morris, Maine — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:23:16 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Tom Morris, Maine — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:23:58 GMT

Thompson lauds gun rights

J. Beard, Martinsburg, WV. — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:24:05 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Otto Dice, Virginia Beach, VA — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:56:12 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

AmericanMan — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:03:38 GMT

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!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Ashley, Milwaukee — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:11:56 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

George Bechtel, Kokomo, IN — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:22:06 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Brandon, Temecula, Demafornia — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:36:23 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

TJG, Raleigh NC — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:41:53 GMT

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"

Thompson lauds gun rights

Freedom, Florida — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:25:37 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Carol Dutton, Chillicothe, IL. 61523 — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:41:30 GMT

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!

Thompson lauds gun rights

JD — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:51:03 GMT

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

Thompson lauds gun rights

Mark White — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:25:54 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Robert Lee — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:39:26 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Trevor, Comfort,Texas — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 06:32:33 GMT

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!!!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Eric, LA — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 08:28:55 GMT

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)

Thompson lauds gun rights

Randy , Hope Mills, NC — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 08:58:22 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Brad Butler, Baton Rouge, Louisiana — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:07:20 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Dawn W, Phoenix, AZ — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:49:45 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Richard, Lafayette, IN — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:07:32 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

HOT DAM — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:23:48 GMT

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

Thompson lauds gun rights

James Harris, New York, NY — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:48:13 GMT

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

Thompson lauds gun rights

K. West Naples, Texas — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 01:45:57 GMT

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?

Thompson lauds gun rights

tlp, Stockbridge, Georgia — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:17:13 GMT

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!!!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Jaye — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:59:53 GMT

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.?

Thompson lauds gun rights

BILL HENDRICKSON — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:24:57 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Rick, WS, NC — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:36:19 GMT

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...

Thompson lauds gun rights

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:13:31 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Ken Martin, Sand Springs, OK — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:37:23 GMT

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!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Seething in San Jose — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:14:08 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:20:00 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Seething in San Jose — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:28:30 GMT

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.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Doug, Austin, TX — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:41:03 GMT

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

Thompson lauds gun rights

Vinnie, Valparaiso, IN — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:59:03 GMT

Some of the comments here are astounding. Some of you want the Second Amendment to mean only being allowed muskets or single shot pistols since you assume that is what the founders meant at the time. Some others, with the same liberal bent, think the Constitution is a living document where the times are different and so should be the language of the Constitution. So which is it? Keep in mind that the founders intended arms that were to be carried to mean those that the ordinary soldier would carry. That does not include field canons. Anyone that has done any research has to conclude that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not a collective right. This is supported on many fronts. The Federalist Papers, Engish Common Law, U.S. court decisions, and others. Soon there may be a further clarification of this issue if the Supreme Court takes up the Washington D.C. gun ban case. When the Supreme Court decides that the right to bear arms is an individual right, those of you who only want to recognize your favorite amendments, and not the Second Amendment, can have cheese with your whine.

Thompson lauds gun rights

RICH HARRISON — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:03:48 GMT

WOOSIE LIBERALS ! There are 20,000 gun laws on the books. No one is avocating the"MENTALLY DERANGED" being able to buy guns !!
What are you going to do when "THE TERRORISTS" come
beating down your doors - CALL GHOST BUSTERS ???

Thompson lauds gun rights

James, New York — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:22:28 GMT

Consider this sentence and tell me if it is not the same in grammar and structure as the second amendment:

A well fed militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and plant corn cannot be infringed.

Does this mean that we can only plant and keep corn in service to the militia? Of course not. The second part of the 2nd amendment is independent of the first part. Knowing that we need a well regulated militia, the founding fathers reiterated an inherint right that already exists even before the realization of the need for a regulated militia.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Seething in San Jose — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:54:56 GMT

Carrie: The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that gun control does not reduce violent crime. I will accept that it is possible that the Founding Fathers may not have intended gun rights to be “unfettered” rights. After all, even Blackstone believed in legislative supremacy. Laws that curtail the ability of Americans to exercise their rights have been upheld by the Court(s), but only when and where there has been clear and overwhelming evidence of a public interest in doing so. With gun rights, all of the academic study indicates that gun control does not reduce violent crime, and yet otherwise intelligent, educated people continue to cling to the idea that a few more gun laws will produce the desired effect.

Draconican gun control, or complete civilian disarmament, has not reduced violent crime in the U.K. or Australia. So, while I can accept that there should not be “unfettered” access to firearms for anyone (e.g. convicted criminals), I do believe that most gun control is not EFFECTIVE in improving public safety. I firmly believe that policy related to gun control should be based on sound scientific research, and the overwhelming body of evidence on gun control in America indicates that it is not effective in reducing violent crime or suicide.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:49:46 GMT

Seething - People often have to wait to have an assembly - part of those time, place and manner restrictions that have been put on our freedom of speech. I have no issue with that.

I have not advocated Draconian gun control. I adovcate reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. I advocate background checks and waiting periods. I advocate putting some sort of limit on what types of guns people may privately own. There's no reason that any private citizen needs to have an AK-47, or anything similar.

Thompson lauds gun rights

William Ewart, Knoxville, TN — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:59:27 GMT

Marcia Gaines, Seattle, WA wrote:
I enjoy how people conveniently forget what the 2nd Amendment actually states. The 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee the right to bear arms - it guarantees the right to bear arms for the purpose of having a well-regulated militia.

The Amendment reads: "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."

By my book that pretty much means that if you're not a member of the defense forces for your state or nation - that you're not guaranteed a right to own a gun.

Ms Gaines, if the Second Amendment were meant to apply only to the militia it would read something like: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militia members to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Or if it were meant to be a collective right it would read something like: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the power of The States to maintain militias shall not be infringed.”
Under the Bill of Rights, the Federal Government, states, and their officials hold powers, and where it refers to the people it always guarantees rights to individual citizens. The framers of the constitution clearly intended the right to keep and bare arms to be an individual right to be regulated when they are called into service as part of a militia or posse. Today, constitutional law scholars cite the individual rights concept as “The standard module.” Please refer to American Constitutional Law by Lawrence H. Tribe which is the textbook that is used at the majority of law schools in this country.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Seething in San Jose — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:34:51 GMT

Carrie: Ahhh, now we are getting down to brass tacks – you advocate "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership, and then fail to demonstrate that your recommended restrictions are reasonable. Personally, I can live with background checks because the current NICS system is working very well, so I guess we agree that the instant background check is a "reasonable restriction." Now, waiting periods are another story. Please review the study done by the National Academy of Sciences regarding gun control and crime rates. This study could not demonstrate even one linkage between a gun control law (such as a waiting period) and an actual benefit to public safety. There are other credible studies to which I could refer, and I will be happy to reference them if you so desire. So, if waiting periods provide no benefit to public safety, why would you support such laws? I suspect that it is because you just don’t like guns and don’t care too much for gun owners (I could be wrong, though).

In addition, let me clear something up for you...The infamous AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun. Gun haters love to talk about AK-47s when they are promoting bans on so-called "assault weapons." The truth is that REAL "assault weapons" are fully automatic machine guns (like the AK-47), which have essentially been banned in the U.S. since the ‘30s. Nowadays, rifles with a handgrip or a folding stock are labeled as "assault weapons" by uninformed and misguided people or by dishonest politicians and others whose goal is to ban civilian ownership of firearms in America. You likely fall into one of these categories, but I don’t know which.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with law-abiding Americans owning rifles with handgrips, folding stocks, and/or other cosmetic features that make them look similar to military firearms. Many Americans regularly participate in shooting sports and competitions using firearms that have such features. I respectfully suggest that you contact the Civilian Marksmanship Program (originally created by the U.S. Congress) in order to educate yourself regarding the safe and lawful enjoyment of shooting sports.

One last thing...Every time I hear someone say something like "Civilians shouldn’t own this-or-that type of firearm," I am reminded of something that Heinrich Himmler said, and I’ll paraphrase it here: "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA; there ‘qualified Germans’ will be taught how to campaign with them properly; ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State."

Thompson lauds gun rights

Glyn, Largo, FL — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:25:47 GMT

The various messages stating that the 2nd Amendment should only apply to those weapons available during the time of the Founding Fathers are in error. First, the main purpose of the amendment was/is to enable The People to keep the government in check by force, if necessary - this is not possible if the citizenry are left with only 18th century firearms to counteract a tyrannical government armed with the latest weaponry.

Second, the 1st Amendment has been applied to the Internet, which obviously was not in existence when the constitution was written. The same thinking should apply to the 2nd Amendment. .

Yes, one of the primary reasons for the inclusion of the right to bear arms within the constitution was for the continued existence of the state militias. But back then the militia consisted of all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 40, and there was also a provision for a secondary militia that comprised the remainder of the population (old men, women, & children) in times of emergency. It is no different than stating that the primary reason for the existence of the 1st Amendment is for freedom of speech within newspapers, but that's not the sole reason. And the National Guard, equipped & trained solely by the Federal Government, is not the modern-day equivalent of the militia.

I feel that there should be reasonable restrictions on gun ownership (with emphasis on the word “reasonable”) and the enforcement of existing gun laws. Gun bans do not work any more than prohibition did, and for similar reasons. The current War on Drugs is going well, don’t you think?

The 2nd Amendment does not grant an individual a right that the Federal government can someday take away if it so chooses – the 2nd Amendment, as does the remainder of the Bill of Rights, enumerates an individual’s inalienable right.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Shawn Bartz, Clarkston, MI — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:54:58 GMT

Bruce Thomson: Your comments are laughable. It's the same tired liberal "living document" argument again. The idea that somehow our technology/society/culture has "progressed" to a point where the old interpretations of the Constitution no longer apply. This is assinine. I hate to do this, because it will probably open a whole off-thread discussion, but it's the best "apples-to-apples" example I can think of to illustrate the left's hipocracy: You condemn the Second Amendment and the freedom it guarantees because firearms technology has advanced to a point well beyond the Kentucky Rifle, and (presumably this is part of it) it's now easier for some psycho to commit mass murder. But somehow you've found the "right to abortion" in the Constitution, which results in the deaths of thousands of the unborn every year. In keeping with your argument, we have to assume the abortion technology in 1787 was far less advanced as well. So if technology has advanced on both fronts to increase the number of possible deaths from each, should not both be banned? My right-thinking friends out there should be rolling right now, that's how ridiculous this is. But you can't have it both ways. The Constitution is what it says it is, no more, no less. And this "well-regulated militia" argument (Andrew and Brian) is just as false. Historically, the militia has always been made up of the common citizen defending his community and his nation. The reason why this country will never be invaded by a foreign force is our ten million registered gun owners who, like their forebears, would use their own weapons for the national defense. Every one of us is a member of the unorganized militia (look that one up in the writings of the Founding Fathers - it's there). And in time of crisis, we could become part of the organized, and well-regulated militia. Therefore - A well-regulated militia (all of us), being necessary to the security of a free state (the USA), the right of the people (again, all of us) to keep and bear arms (you know, guns) shall not be infringed (restricted). And, by the way, "the People" mentioned above are the same ones referred to in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. Just a hint.

Thompson lauds gun rights

RJ — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:08:19 GMT

Fred Thompson has my vote.

Thompson lauds gun rights

C.H.Willis,111 Boca Raton , Florida — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:32:08 GMT

It seems to me that Fred is the only one with common sense.

Thompson lauds gun rights

tinman — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:54:58 GMT

Thomas Jefferson defined well regulated as well equipt and the militia as all able body men.

Thompson lauds gun rights

A.X. Perez, El Paso, Tx. — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:16:28 GMT

The state has no rights. It is a corporate entity permitted to exist to protect the rights of persons, including the right to arm hemselves appropriately to defend their lives, liberty and property, Politicians who support diarming the people are criminals who intend to use the force of law to disarm their intended victims.
I realize that many people have suffered tragedy because of guns in the hands of the wrong people. Being stampeded into sacrificing the rights of honest people will only compound, not ameliorate the tragedy you suffered,
12,000,000 unarmed Jews and gentiles died in Europe in the Forties showing us where gun control will get you.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Sentinel. Reno, Nevada — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:16:30 GMT

I'm an NRA life member who thinks that all private sales should probably be subject to, at a minimum, some sort of screening of the purchaser. However, do I trust the local cops or city council to administer such a system fairly? Hardly. As a California refugee, I can tell you from experience that such systems are inevitably used to harass & punish gun owners simply for being gun owners. In Cali, over a fairly short period of time, the cost of the state mandated background check QUADRUPLED. The cost increase, naturally, borne by the would-be buyer. Now ... if that screening is so valuable, why should the cost of it be suffered only by the good guys and not also by the public generally who also benefit?
ANSWER: Because the purpose of the law is to harass & punish gun owners, financially & otherwise, NOT to interdict criminals. If & when gun ownership and self defense are treated like the rights that they are, opposition to reasonable controls will diminish.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Ray Thornhill, Foxworth Ms. — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:45:20 GMT

Ron Paul is the only one runing that is NOT a member of the CFR. That makes all the others unfit to serve in any office. Get behind Ron Paul, force the media to give him time and he will do the rest.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Dave, Delta, Ohio — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:35:06 GMT

At the time it was written, WE THE PEOPLE were the militia. The PEOPLE are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms so we would be able to respond immediately to a given emergency. Kind of like a community watch group or the Minutemen Border Watchers.
Today there are so many hoops that a "law abiding citizen" has to jump through just to exercise their constitutional rights. Criminals by definition are law breakers, so no matter what laws we enact they will not abide by them. The same goes for posting signs prohibiting concealed carry. To a criminal with the intent to commit a crime using a firearm, this sign only informs him that he will not be confronted or deterred from committing his act.

I really get a laugh from all the doomsday prophets who join in on the gun debate but have no idea what they are talking about. ie: Those above who mentioned something about a 12 year old acquiring an Uzi or having a bunch of drunken college kids bringing guns to their party. First off, to purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer, you have to be twenty-one and pass the background checks (which are also done at gun shows) and to buy an UZI, it would have to be a semi-auto because it has been against the law to own a fully automatic firearm since the early 1930s, without passing a stringent background exam, acquiring a FFL and paying a renewable fee that is pretty hefty.
Next, college students that are over 21 are adults. They must also pay to take the concealed carry course, have the background checks done and purchase their firearm and ammunition. As responsible adults they know that as well as a right, it is also a priviledge and can be lost by improper use. A felony charge is all it would take to lose it. The majority are also smart enough to know that alcohol and guns don't mix. All the "what if's" can be argued till your blue in the face. (If the pilgrims had shot a skunk instead of a turkey, it would have changed Thanksgiving) The main thing is the difference between the law abiding and the criminals.

If you notice, I did not use the term "weapon" before because anything used in an offensive or threatening manner can be a weapon. Firearms/guns or bows that are used for sporting or defensive purposes are not weapons, they are tools used for their intended purpose.
I have been an LEO for over thirty years and I do not fear a law abiding citizen carrying a firearm because I know they will only use or display it if it is necessary. It is the criminal who does not abide by our laws in the first place, that will use any weapon he can get his hands on to threaten or injure his intended victim(s) and no law or sign will deter him. Most of these criminals are cowards, who if confronted with equal or superior force, will vacate their intended plans.
Most of the liberal talking heads here want to legislate morality but they haven't figured out that it can't be done. The term "People" used in the 2nd Amendment means the same as it does in every other Amendment. It is our (the people's) right to keep and bear arms for self protection or any lawful purpose that we so fit to choose.

Thompson lauds gun rights

J. Beard, Martinsburg, WV. — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:23:36 GMT

Warning! Liberals! Do not read this! I have had my CCW for many years now. When I go to the store, I am armed. When I go to Church, I am armed. Whenever I go out of my house, I am armed. I work as an armed Security Guard. There are probably tens of thousands of people like me who do the same. They are all around you! Yet you will probably never know who they are because they are law abiding citizens who would not dream of using their firearms other than for self defense or the defense of another! I have never had to use my firearm and I pray that I never will! But every time I go out, I will be armed, and you will never know that I am. And if you're a criminal, that's just the way I want it! Go Fred!

Thompson lauds gun rights

James M. Dillion McAllen, Texas. — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:25:19 GMT

I am surprised that Fred Thompson knows so little about the NRA that he would make such an incorrect statement like "conservative groups like the NRA"
Anyone one that knows anything about the NRA knows it is neither conservative or liberal. The NRA is all about the protection of the Second Amendment, firearm safety, and firearm training. It may seem like the NRA is a conservative group because it backs more conservatives than it does liberals, but that is because the conservative seem to more intelligent about the rights of all the people.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Mark Eaves , Austin ,Texas — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:30:41 GMT

I have been reading some comments and can't understand how anyone can say that the second amendment only refers to a malitia , what about all the other amendments where the term ( the rights of the people are used) is this interprataion in all instance of occurance only held by our state or federal government or is it to give the people the power. The government has no rights only the people have rights. and when all the people realise they are responsable for thier on safty then and only then will we truly be free. I feel that most Dem's are socialist beliving that a utopian society can be obtained through government interferance. I can't refer to any libaral ideology as I personly don't know any real libarals as ther as never been one in the White House in my life time. One more thing when people start attacking anyone on a personal level they loose all intelecual gredability.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Art, Woodbury NJ — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:38:20 GMT

One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student got a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman. The socialist Democrats will have you believe that banning everything will solve all of our problems while the rich elite ones do whatever they want. Go Fred!

Thompson lauds gun rights

J. Harbin, Memphis, TN — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:44:35 GMT

We have an individual right to keep and bear arms. As to the Militia "Myth", According to US law quoted below, citizens ARE the militia. Wake up people.

"United States Code:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This? (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Thompson lauds gun rights

John B Galt — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:29:49 GMT

It amazes me to see how many people are so eager to send this country down the hellish road to socialism. The poster states for those who love liberal Democrats are Cuba, East Germany, Stalinist Russia, or North Korea. Go check out the gun rights there now or in the past. Restrict the gun ownership rights of free men and you will get slavery. Every time.

Why do you think the first thing totalitarians do once in power is to disarm everyone but themselves?

The Second Amendment is there to protect us from our own government. The Founders knew this; it's not about duck hunting, its about self defense and defense against tyranny.

Thompson lauds gun rights

John, Lanse, PA — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:15:29 GMT

what part of "shall not be infringed" do some people not understand?

Thompson lauds gun rights

Bruce hertford nc — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:46:46 GMT

to Carrie from eastern iowa, first off, you have to be 21 to buy a fire arm, also all local amd state laws apply, so get your facts straight before you go running off at the mouth!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Geoff Meade, San Antonio, TX — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:13:09 GMT

Hey Marcia, The fact is, you ARE a member of your country's defense forces, a part of the militia, whether you like it or not, whether you are too cowardly or irresponsible to take up your civic duties or not. The fact is, that the milita is ALL the people. They are who the sheriff called up for a posse in the old (and modern) west, they are who still get called on pretty regularly. Remember the Texas (UT, that is) tower shooting in the mid-1960s? The guy who led the two police up to the top, the one who fired the first shot at him, was a civilian. He just happened to be there and knew how to get to the top of the tower. The cops gave him a rifle and he led the charge. And it wasn't cops, but armed students on the ground, who stopped the killing by returning the gunman's fire with hunting rifles and keeping his head down so he couldn't shoot anyone else. Of course, that was Texas where we know our civic rights and responsibilities (maybe that's why the DC sniper of a few years ago stayed in the DC area. If he tried that stuff in Texas, half a dozen bystanders would have returned fire and stopped him, long before he racked up as many victims as he did in DC.) WE THE PEOPLE are, and always have been, the MILITIA. The argument that the 2nd amendment grants us the right to own a nuke is idiotic, but we are clearly granted the right to own whatever the military commonly uses as individual arms, that would include not only automatic weapons, but grenades, RPGs, etc. The founding fathers were quite specific about the right being necessary so the people could stop a tyrannical govt. If you look at Iraq, it is snipers, machine guns, IEDs,and RPG's being used against the govt forces, right? I refer you to a badly misunderstood 2nd amendment decision by the SCOTUS in 1932. A guy named Miller was arrested for carrying a sawed off shotgun and claimed violation of the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS said "No Dice," on the basis that no military uses sawed off shotguns. By their reasoning, he would have been perfectly legal with an AR-15 or Thompson Submachine gun...the military does use those. HHMMMMNN!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Ronald J.Kussy — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:36:55 GMT

Too,all Liberals---Fred is the man, those from the other states and city's should go too some of the traing our police forces, are receiving---the Muslems---they are going too attack our kids---listen and watch---those who can defend them may win, I feel sorry for the Democrates---they will lose----MARK THESE WORDS---IN A YEAR OR TWO AMERICA WATCH OUT---ONCE A LIBERAL OR MUSLEM---ALWAYS ONE- America we have seen nothing yet. I only hope being a Nam Vet---it stays over there----We need our guns---and some one to protect America---like Pres> Bush and the NRA.

Thompson lauds gun rights

S.T — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:44:20 GMT

Well, I see alot of coments about VT and lets just get columbine out there too. All these incedents are the result of the system breaking down, the guns are not to blame the assholes behind the triggers are.
VT : the bleeding heart doctors didnt want to destroy this poor boys future, so they didnt put him into the system as bieng mentally stupid , had they he would not have been able to buy the guns. Instead he would have come back as bieng mentally unstable and told to hit the road....but its the guns fault.
Columbine: again the assholes begged thier parents to buy them the guns, used thier parents ID and credit cards to illegally buy the guns, and the parents claimed they didnt notice the thousands of doallars in expendatures cause thier kids were spooiled little (rich) latch key kids...but are the parents to blame, or the politicians or the school district to blame... no lets blame the guns..
Lastly to the Dumb Ass who sugested we need to change the constitution, I submit this point...if you are going to give that kinda power to the politicians what are you going to do when they take away all your freedoms....right after they take the means for you to defend them? those of you bitching about habeous corpus and illegel wire taps should think about that.
I have owned guns for over 30 years and none of mine ever killed anyone unless i wanted them too.
I hope you will have the common sense to think about what i wrote, the second amendment is there for a reason and its the same reason today as it was in 1776. "The means off the people to throw off the chains of tyranny " (Thomas Jefferson i think) and since the goverment controls the army and police it is up to the people to reserve the right for themselves.
I will say this...I am a law abiding citizen, a decorated veteran and i love my country ...but the first day without the second amendment will likely be the first day of the second revolution...at least at my house.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Michael Bodner, Rock Hill, SC — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:45:38 GMT

It's always fun when people say that you're not allowed to own bombs, bazookas, etc. In fact, as long as it isn't classified as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) which is defined as Nuclear, Biological, or chemical weapons that can kill large numbers of folks, you allowed to owe it!!

Believe it or not, you CAN own a bazooka, hand grenades, machine guns, artillery (cannons), etc as long as you get a Federally approved background check and pay a $200 tax. After that, you're bound by the laws that prohibit murder, mayhem, and robbery.

So drop the idea that the American's can only own guns that the Founders had at their time: You can own anything short of a WMD as long as you cause no harm. Interesting enough, 50% of the machine guns in the US are privately held. How many legally owned machine guns were used in the commission of a crime in the last 75 years? One, and that was by a rogue police officer playing undercover Miami Vice (He went to jail).

Thompson lauds gun rights

Ricky Jackson, Simi Valley, California — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:32:02 GMT

I do not know about the rest of you, but I was not there at the signing of the constitution. It has always been my belief that the Second Amendment is two separate clauses that can form together into one. Obviously, the people need to have guns to be part of the militia, otherwise what is the point? To get the guns for the militia they have to go through a background check to get the guns that they intend to use against the corrupt government? That makes no sense at all.
I am for gun ownership. I believe that criminals, for the most part, are cowards. If their target is armed, there is a much smaller chance that the target will become a victim. I think nuclear weapons and the like are a little extreme. I am not saying that it is a good idea for you and your neighbor to own a couple of nukes, but weapons should be easily obtainable. Do you think that the Virginia Tech shooting would have been as horrible and tragic if other students had been armed? If other students had been armed, it is likely that Seung-Hui would not have been able to kill so many. The only reason that he killed so many is that he had no opposition.
Also, did you know that Hitler was the one who coined the idea of gun registration? Roughly translated here is what he said
"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler
I do not want the government regulating my rights. What is next? Free speech? Oh sorry, that is already happening. How long will it be before we no longer have any freedoms? Save our country. Don't vote for the socialist party.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Ken - Westminster, Colorado — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:32:43 GMT

Well, if you do a little research and do some reading of papers written by Thomas Jefferson and friends, you will find that they were concerned with THE PEOPLE being able to keep and maintain their arms. The purposes were for self-defense and overthrowing tyranical governments.

You will also find that at the time this was placed into the Constitution, there were no "formal" militias.

The militia was every able bodied male 18 - 35 years of age. The Consitution over time has a history of becoming more inclusive so the assumption that every able bodied person is included would be correct.

You want to ban firearms? It sure worked well with illegal drugs. Hmmm. Let's see now, people who obey the laws don't have drugs, but the criminals do.

So, those who obey laws won't have guns, but the criminals, gangbangers, drug dealers, rapists and the like will.

I think I will keep my guns thank-you.

Thompson lauds gun rights

joe — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:07:55 GMT

well first of all. the RIGHT to arms is merely affirmed in the Constitution. the RIGHT is unalienable... marriage is an act predicated on religious beliefs.... what the hell happened to common sense and responsibility? too many soundbite vh1 mtv addicts need ritalin... get a grip... if there is a mental case he is already illegal by just attempting to purchase a fireare. gee the laws really work dont they? dial 911, order the pizza, see who wins...
dependency on the gov't will get you in trouble every time... suckers of the gov't tit... step up be a man or women of your own. read the truth not the lies of the left.... and for that matter dont believe everything on the right... big gov't sucks the life and freedoms from you... wealth redistribution is another form of slavery... the right to tax is the right to destroy.... there is no such thing as a free lunch.... the framers wanted to ensure that freedoms would be preserved, the best way for this is to be indepentent and take responsibility for your own safety. there is no duty to protect by the police to an individual, only to society as a whole......
the gun is the best equalizer of a small victim big attacker.... if you want to empower someone,teach them how to shoot and get them a gun legally.....

Thompson lauds gun rights

Kevin, St. Louis Mo. — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:08:25 GMT

I own a gun, I own several guns as matter of fact. I walked into a Gun store, and within an hour I had an AK-47, an extended magazine, 1,000 rounds of hollow point ammuniton, a scope and mount, with the scope wighted in for 200 yards. That easy people, the second amendment gets thrown around way to fast...but have you read, the WHOLE thing. "the rights of citizens to own, and posses firearms IN A WELL REGULATED MILLITA shall not be infringed." Theres nothing in there about your personally gun ownership liberties. No one is saying you can't own a gun, but you have to wait seven days, and show ID. How hard is that, Come on...get over yourself.

Thompson lauds gun rights

GEORGE GRAHAM GREEN BAY WI — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:39:25 GMT

THERE ARE ENOUGH GUN CONTROL LAWS ON THE BOOKS -- LOOK AT THE CRIME RATE IN WHERE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO
CARRY--HOW THE RATE HAS GONE DOWN--
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY AND PROTECT
THEMSELFS AND OTHER--WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THE POLICE STOPPED ROBBER IN THE ACT--POLICE DO A GREAT JOB BUT, THEY CAN NOT BE EVERYWHERE TO STOP CRIME--
IF YOU WANT TO BE A VICTIM AND LIVE IN FEAR ALL THE
TIME GIVE UP YOUR GUNS -- BECAUSE NO ONE WILL BE THERE TO HELP YOU--WE DO NOT NEED A POLICE STATE WITH
NO PROTECTION OF OUR OWN

Thompson lauds gun rights

Reverend of Rock — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:41:49 GMT

Let's see..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The last I knew, I was still one of "the people". Therefore, my right to keep and bear arms "SHALL NOT be infringed". What is an infringement? According to my dictionary, it is a "violation: an act that disregards an agreement or a right". Okay then. A violation, by definition, is "a misdemeanor, a crime". That settled, anything that disrupts my ability to obtain - by purchase or trade - a firearm, whether it be a "waiting period", license, "Brady bill", "anti-terrorist legislation", ad nauseum... is an infringement, i.e. a violation, i.e. a crime. Does anyone get it?? There are over 10,000 so-called "gun laws" that our 'representatives' have passed. The stupid NRA says, like others, that we don't need more laws, but need to enforce the ones that we already have. But those laws are infringe upon my right to a firearm. The 'representatives' have committed a crime by enacting them, and the NRA perpetrates those crimes by endorsing them. Get a clue, people!!!

Thompson lauds gun rights

David Mercier, Athens Maine — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:44:44 GMT

I spent 29 yrs in the worlds finest Navy ans over 35 yrs with the NRA. Both organizations support freedon and demacracy fall all. The 2nd amendment ensures that we have freedom and democracy. We have the best country, the best freedoms and the best constitution.

To my grave I will say that anyone who wishes to change or destroy the 2nd amendment of our constitution, is not an American, does not support freedom and democracy and is so over-educated that they thing life is all guaranteed , takes everthing for granted and trusts the government. I also believe that those in the congress and senate that have that big personal agenda to register all firearms and the ammo sales are the biggest bunch of meglomaniacs with the primary desire to finish turning this country to socialism. Socialism to me is a politically correct word for communism.

I was a democrat & in 1991 I changed to republican and now I just call myself a Patriot American. I made the change after working 4 yrs in Washington DC and after learning how the majority of our so called leaders and lawmakers there wish to ban firearms.
I guess they all skipped history in H.S. and college
and too darn many think that Utopia actually exists.
I figure that too many people here just might have spent their lives in a cave or just cant see the forest due to trees in the way.

In Jan 09 we just might find out (too late) about what the Clintons primary agenda really is.....and it is just what other people in the UN want. George Soros, the dual citizen Hungarian/US multi-billionare
lost over 26 milliom last time trying to get "Gun Control Kerry" into power so USA would be forces to throw down our firearms in surrender. Hey its the fast track to foreign power take over without firing the first shot ,heard round the world

Do any of you recall the story about Hitlers troops going straight to the town clerks ofiice to get the names or registered firearms owners and what that lead too?? Hey don't you know that GUN CONTROL was really appreciated by Stalin and Lenin also !!!!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Ron Dot'o — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:54:01 GMT

What most people don't realize is that most able bodied males between 18 and 45 are members of the Unorganized Militia and can be drafted into State Duty, therefore owning a firearm is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT! It's covered by the Militia Act of 19th centery (I forget the exact date but it's 1890 something). That Act is still in efect and is included in most, if not all, State Constitutions.The Militia Act requires members to own a current firearm and ammunition. The argument that owning firearms is a collective right is lame. The Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, not collective rights as gun grabbers espouse. The 2nd Ammendent is in the Bill of Rights and therefore is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Ron Dot'o, Salem, OR — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:58:55 GMT

I don't care what CFRed Thompson is spouting now, his voting record as a senator shows him as anti freedom and anti gun.

To answer an earlier comment, Portlad and Eugene OR are blue and liberal as hell, the rest of the state is red, PDX and EUG's population outweigh the rest of the state unfortuantely.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Harold Muskegon, Michigan — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:33:04 GMT

Anyone but Clinton.
Hilary Clinton will be the worst possible person to run the US. You think people die in iraq now! you will have news reports of people dying in New York, or Michigan daily because we will be at war in the US because all are troops will be at home fighting the war not in another country defeating terrorism. And anyone blaming bush for the war look back in history Mr. Bill Clinton could have had Osama killed in 1997 and even before but he didn't. So blame him for 9/11.

Please just don't support Hillary Clinton unless you want to fight a war against terrorism in your backyard.
And if you think im just talking i am in the us army. Im not afraid to go fight.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Jerry, Statesville, NC — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:19:38 GMT

To Pat in Huntington Pa
The back ground check at gun shows are for new guns. If I have a gun I want to sale I don't have to have a person checked out to sale it and the second adment is a very important part of what made this the home of the free. The first thing a government does if it wants to weaken the people is take away there right to bare arms. Just look back in history at the leaders that took that right and went on to kill millions. And if any of the students would have have the right to carry a weapon the number of dead at VT would have been much less

Thompson lauds gun rights

joe shmow — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:14:24 GMT

The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is crystal clear. All you have to do is look at the the rights gun owners had prior to liberal interferance. This is the way our fore fathers left it when their watch ended. That was the way they and the people of the U.S. wanted it. The over used saying that "guns don't kill people, people do" is still the most truthful statement that can be given on this issue. Our corrections system is in a state of chaos. This is do to liberal interferance. To simply separate criminals from society and give them all the comforts of home is not the answer. Allowing gangs to control prisons is rediculous. Hard labor. Road details. No TV. No lifting weights. Extreme punishment for prison attacks and takeovers. Prison should be a place you never want to be again. Criminal control. Not gun control.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Rusty Woods, Palm Desert, CA. — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:40:03 GMT

To Marcia in Seattle and Andrew in Minneapolis. You both have it wrong, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". So that in times of need they can become part of, " A well regulated Militia, being nessisary for the security of a free State,". (Read the Patriot, or a least watch the movie.)
Try using your brains people, if you are unable to think for your self, the politians are more than willing to do it for you.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Larry Albert — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:41:05 GMT

Passing more and more gun laws has only one possible effect. It regulates and restricts those who have guns legally. There isn't a single criminal out there that will be affected by more restrictions on legal gun ownership or by the removal of firearms from our society. They do not buy guns legally. They do not have to pass a background check to buy a firearm. They do not have a waiting period. They do not register their firearms. They don't buy their firearms from gun shops or FFL holders.

Bottom line is the that gun laws only regulate the lawful purchase of firearms and the lawful owners and buyers of firearms. They do nothing to stop the unlawful purchase of firearms by people who cannot legally buy them. Any criminal will tell you that they can go to the right street corner of any city and buy any weapon they want.

You will also never hear the liberal media report that, in every case, all states that have passed "right to carry" laws for their citizens have seen immediate decreases in violent crime and assault. They will also never report that less than 1% of crimes commited with firearms are commited with firearms designated as assault weapons. Nor will you hear that a Police Officer is 10 times more likely to be shot with his own weapon than he is likely to be shot with an assault weapon. Those are facts recently published by the FBI. Did you hear it first on CBS, ABC or NBC? NOT!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Mark, Tacoma, WA — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:14:33 GMT

ok for the folks that obviously have NEVER been to a gun show, a 12 year old could not buy a gun, you personally would not be able to buy a gun to any of the shows i have attended. WHY? you may ask. BECAUSE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CLUB PUTTING ON THE SHOW. part of the process to become a member REQUIRES a FREAKING BACKGROUND CHECK. so this line about walking into a show and purchasing a gun without a background check is all bs as it is done prior to being a member. also for the guns show i attend if you are caught selling to non members you will be banned from returning and your membership pulled from you. the whole issue with people today is they need to take PERSONAL resposibility for their actions, raise your kids right and do not blame someone else if your kid or you turns out to be a bonehead. as a last note all of you out there that think you can buy a gun at a gun show check it out i bet you will only find 1 in a 100 that would let you do it without joining the club and going through the standard background check that is done for all gun sales.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Keith Wintersteen — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:40:49 GMT

I already knew what the 2nd amendment "reads". What I enjoy is how conveniently some misinterpret what the 2nd Amendment means:
Because the security of a free state requires that it can muster a "well regulated militia" (meaning that besides people, a militia is going to need, first and foremost, what?...FIREARMS!), the right of "the people" (individual ones) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, the first part of the text prequalifies, or gives a primary (but not neccessarily the ONLY)reason for the latter. If the founding fathers didn't mean for it to be an individual right, I'm sure they would've spelled that out more clearly in the text. It seems universally believed that in any of the other nine amendments in the bill of rights, the words "the people" means just that: Individual citizens. Why, then, do so many want to rewrite the meaning of that simple phrase as it's used in the 2nd? Do people really think that this document was scribbled down in a matter of seconds on a beer-soaked bar rag, and then rushed over to Constitution Hall to be voted on?

Thompson lauds gun rights

Kirby,Delta colorado — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:03:58 GMT

Stupid pepole still belive that guns kill pepole,Well they are wrong as again.Pepole kill people be it with a gun ,knife ,club bare hands or a car while drunk like Ted Kennedy.You people make me sick with your half baked ideas when you don't have a clue.

I wish that I was half as smart as you think you people are to be able to read the minds of our fore fathers to know what they had in mind.

Thompson lauds gun rights

John Doe, Mississippi — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:44:23 GMT

Everyone for gun control, please post a sign on your front door that states that there are no guns on this property!

Thompson lauds gun rights

Lee Chumley — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:04:21 GMT

I am always amazed at how much everyone seems to be an expert on everything, but when quizzed cannot defend their position. The first 10 amendments to the consititution were always about personal rights. They were intended to protect individuals from the big government that existed in Britain from whence they came. This stuff about militias simply meant they could band together if they chose which their guns. All the recorded dialogue prior to the first 10 amendments was clear. Remember, the Declaration of Independence was in 1776. The 10 Amendments were ratified in 1791. Fifteen (15) years passed in which the "dialogue" developed and the language was debated. Don't you wish our Congress would debate the language of each new law for 15 years. Well not really, but if they did, we would expect the language to be pretty clear. I taught Constitutional Law in college courses for many years. 99% of all students had a political opinional against gun control which I thought was very odd. The only students I recall that advocated restrictions on gun ownership to normal citizens were those who had an emotional reason. Most students would say something like, well, I don't own guns, or I don't hunt, but I recognize the need for guns for self-defense and accept the 2nd Amendment as a self-defense right granted or reserved by the Constitution.

What also, amazes me today is the overhwelming scientific data indicating that the presence of handguns lowers violent crime. It defies common sense at first blush, but is documented in more than 38 states. The more people who obtain concealed gun permits, the lower the violent crime. Also, the number of innocent people killed by guns is very small compared to other activities, i.e. cars, sports, alcohol, tobacco use, and the like. It amazes me so many people are involved in this debate. The "gun thing" is really not that significant an issue in our society. Terrorism, HIV, avian flu, the demise of social security funding and the like can destroy the lives and our lifestyle of huge numbers of Americans. The impact of guns on our society is very small. Why are we having this debate. Leave the constitutional provisions alone, and get involved in something that will actually help American society.
LawProf, JD,MBA,MA

Thompson lauds gun rights

Calvin Morris, Hayward, Ca. — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:26:19 GMT

Yep, let us toss out this old out of date Constitution, and start over again. It won't be hard, we already have a good start. You don't like,Amendment 11, toss it. We will replace it with, "no guns are allowed in this country". Only knives to prepare food are allowed. Cars will be allowed, but cannot exceed 35 MPH. No glass containers allowed, metal cans only. No seat belts on school buses. If you name your toy bear anything but "bear" you will be in jail for ten years. If you call any person a bad name you will spend five years in jail. If you try to correct your out of control children, they will be taken from you, and you will spend two years in jail. Man, we can really get this rotten, out of date Constitution up to date. We may even have to get back to, "make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts". Oh, you will find this in, section 10.

Thompson lauds gun rights

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:47:51 GMT

Having a way to measureless web pages in reference to this is amazing.