walkerboh4269

How important to you is the issue of gun control when it comes to voting for President?

Are you likely to change your based on the candidates view on things like the 2nd amendment? Or say the now gone AWB?

I know that for myself it is a very big indicator of how I vote.

Journeyman

Well, John Kerry's lax policy on gun control paves the way for me to be able to vote for him. As has been addressed before, even someone as charismatic, progressive and idealistic as Barak Obama loses my vote when he actively desires a ban on all semi-automatic weapons.

walkerboh4269

From what I understand John Kerry has never met a gun ban he didn't like. All of his I am a life longer hunter is just window dressing for the election.

mattevil

Something tells me John Kerry likes guns

walkerboh4269

Anybody can stand around witha gun and do some shooting. Heck even Clinton did it and then pushed for the AWB.

Kerry may like guns does that mean he likes you or I haveing guns?

LeviticusMky

Guns are a bad idea to have in a public setting.

Nuff said.

hoosier52

For me the gun control issue is a minor one. Neither Bush nor Kerry are likely to push for any significant changes. Besides that, whatever legislation they propose will have to pass thru a fairly conservative Senate and House. I'm more interested in their positions on the economy in general and jobs in particular. It surprises me Kerry hasn't compaigned on those issues; instead he seems to be making the election a referendum on the war in Iraq. If he was smart, he'd take a page out of Bill Clintons campaign strategy book, "It's The Economy Stupid".

summerkc

Gun control laws have never shown to have any effect on murder rates. If someone wants a gun, their are going to get a gun.

As for semi-automatic weapons, I don't think they should be illegal, the vast majority of people that own these guns have them for target practice. Of course no one uses them for any practical purpose, like most peoples hobbies. Also, it is kind of hard to walk around with a concealed AK-47 in your coat, the only reason you would use one of these for a crime is if you wanted to get caught!

scout

I may be wrong and it's been a long day and I really don't feel like looking it up, but didn't Kerry say he would push to reinstate the AWB immediately after it expired? I do know he was stating he supported it immediately after it expired. Gun control is probably the #1 reason I just can't find it in my heart to vote for Kerry.

theusername

I'm still fairly undecided, but to make your vote based solely on gun control is a little ridiculous ain't it? Oh well, it's a free country.

__________________
?

MSD

I feel that I need to point out that this free country was made possible by those who refused to lay down their military-style weapons that those in power tried to ban and confiscate. Politically, respect is fear of consequences. The reason our government cannot get out of hand is because so many people are armed. I used to advocate the banning of all guns, even those used for hunting and target shooting. I would have supported confiscation of every firearm in the country. Over the years, I slowly began to undersand why that right is so important, and why we have it in the first place. I can now honestly say that it is the most important right we have. I don't expect to ever need to fight against a corrupt government, but if it comes to that, I will do so, and I will even fight for those who wished that they could take my guns away.

DelayedReaction

Although I am vehemently against any kind of weapon ban, it's not my deciding issue. Instead I consider it to be a part of civil liberties in general, and the candidate who supports civil liberties the most is the one I prefer to vote for.

In this case I'm voting for Badnarik, but were I to live in a contested state my vote would got to Kerry. Although he is decidedly a gun grabber, his views on other civil liberties are much more pleasant that Bush's. Hopefully I'll be able to buy what I want before any other laws get through.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

seretogis

Our constitutional right to bear arms is the one right which guarantees the rest. Therefore, it should be a major issue to most people.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

scout

I didn't say it was the sole issue, but probably the #1 issue why I can't vote for Kerry. If I went through and logically eliminated all the other issues, there would still be the fact there hasn't been a gun ban that Kerry didn't vote for. Seretogis is correct, once the fundamental individual liberty of gun ownership is gone then you can say goodbye to the rest we all enjoy in short order. Do I believe that individuals with weapons that are currently legal can stand up to the present day army? Absolutely not, however there was a poll taken during the Clinton Administration asking our brothers and sisters in the military if they would fire upon American citizens if ordered to do so in the event of a revolt or revolution and the result was about 50/50, 50% would and 50% wouldn't. So there is still hope that a armed citizenry can and will hold the government accountable, God forbid it should ever happen!

gcbrowni

My fellow Hoosier is correct; the house and senate are not going to pass new laws so the presidents views matter very little in this election. Restricting abortionsrights falls in to the same catagory; not going to happen with this house and senate. Bush/Kerry might get a Supreme Court Justice, which probabally would matter down the line, but there are too many unknowns for me to consider that.

I disagree on the domestic issue focus opninion; the countries fine and the president has little direct impact there; again, it's congress. The guy who wins will be the one who says 'I will kill terrorists' the most. Right now that's Kerry.

__________________
From the day of his birth Gilgamesh was called by name.

connyosis

Excuse me? That is just bullshit. European countries have much stricter laws when it comes to guns than the US, and compare how many people get killed by guns a year in the US and in Europe. Of course gun control laws will have effect on murder rates, thinking it wont is just stupid.

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Da Munk

You're mixing statistics. Less guns is obviously going to reduce the number of gun deaths, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will reduce murder rates. There are other ways to kill a person than shooting them. Countries with stricter gun control laws will obviously have fewer gun deaths and they may even have lower murder rates overall, but the point is that there isn't any conclusive evidence that the gun control laws themselves are the reason for the lower murder rates.

Strange Famous

I am not American, but in relation to the first part of the question - as far as I can see both presidents are pro gun.

If I had a vote in this election, I would be attracted to any candidate who stood for much tighter gun control (by which I mean it becoming illegal for ordinary people to own a gun), but it would not be the key issue to me, it would not be as big an issue as say - mass nationalisation - without compensation - of key industries, and the confiscation of the assets of the wealthy. Realistically though, at present someone standing on a radical working class platform could not get more than 5% of the vote - at least in this election.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

connyosis

Ok, maybe you are right there is no evidence that gun control laws will lower murder rates, but IMHO everything points to that. Evidence or not it seems pretty logical to me that fewer guns on the streets will lower gun related crimes. Sure, as previously stated anyone that wants to get a gun for using it in a murder will, but it goes without saying that having more control over guns will make it a lot harder for that person to get it.

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

walkerboh4269

Well it looks like this board is not quite as against guns as I thought at first.

One of the reasons that I feel the control issue is so important was already stated above. The fact that the 2A grants us the right to Keep and BEAR arms keeps the government in check. I highly doubt that this country will ever be taken over by a dictator.

Wether or not you believe that the citizens can stand up to the Army...well we did it in the revolution and I have no doubt we can do it again.

What about the ability to bear arms? What do you guys think about people being able to carry concealed a handgun? What about restrictions on what weapons we are allowed to own?

I for one believe that the 2A covers this already and any law that restricts my ability to carry or own my choice of weapon is unconstitutional.

ARTelevision

My guns are a part of the many reasons for how I cast my vote. Minimal gun control for non-criminal uses of firearms is one of the broad issues that have to do with freedom and security that form my view of political realities today. The other issues involve foreign policy and economics.

__________________
create evolution

Da Munk

I don't agree with gun bans, but rather than continue to detract from this thread by arguing about the merits of banning firearms I'll just have to agree to disagree.

And as far as the importance of gun control on choosing who to vote for; it is important to me because I believe that our liberties must not be infringed upon.

Stare At The Sun

Ditto. Couldn't have said it better.

Strange Famous

But surely there is a line somewhere? Even if it is only weapons that can reasonably be used for self defence.

Should you be allowed to carry a rocket launcher, a flame thrower? To drive a tank? To set up SAM missiles in your yard? Create chemical weapons to use against intruders on your property? Protect your house with land mines?

Surely the right to bare arms has to be limited to weapons that function as a means of self defence?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Stare At The Sun

The right to bare arms in the united states was created to allow us to have a well regulated militia, that would serve as an ultimate check against the federal government. If they ever get to out of control, or take away our freedoms, etc, it is the duty of the militia to take control. However, with even semi automatic rifles being taken from us, our ability to truly keep the fed in check is seriously going down hill.



If you REALLY want to lower gun related crimes, put restrictions on the .357 snub nose pistol. Not a 3,000 dollar H&K Sub-machine gun.

Strange Famous

But who guard's the guards? Who will control the militia if they suspend freedoms?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Stare At The Sun

? uh...I don't think you get it, the militia IS the gaurd. They are the people, and are, in theory, only there to make sure the fed doesn't try and take our freedoms away, etc. They are basically a last resort. If it were to ever come to that, they would restore the freedoms that were lost prior to the "uprising" asap, as that is why they were fighting in the first place.

walkerboh4269

We are you and me are the militia. And I believe that only people who believe in the constitution would be fighting against a corrupt government to restore the constitution. No more no less. The militia would not set up a dictatorship it would just restore the freedoms we had lost.

Strange Famous

History does not support that. But nevertheless, do you think that it is right for the federal government to limit the weapons that the population may arm themselves with to any degree?

Do you believe that citizens should have the right to, for example, protect their home with a flame thrower or a chemical weapon?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

walkerboh4269

Yes i think that we should have access to what ever weapons the government may have.

As far as using those weapons to protect my home.... a flame thrower or a chemical weapon would be the wrong choice as I am cause more damage to what I am trying to protect than what I am protecting against.

When it comes down to it anything can be used as a weapon the chair you are sitting on even to computer you use to visit this board. All guns are just tools they are not evil and cannot act on there own.

The greatest protection we have in this country is the 2A. As has been said before it is the one right that protects all others. It is the ultimate check and balance against corruption in the government.

Strange Famous

I understand that those weapons might not be practical. But the logical and moral implication is basically this.

America recently went to war over alleged WMD in Iraq, yet you are in favour of the American population having access to WMD (in theory, I accept they arent practical)

The UN is fighting for the non-proliferation of atomic weapons in places like Korea and Iran, yet in theory, you are saying that ordinary American citizens should have access to atomic weapos.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

sob

Name-calling doesn't make you right, and the rest of your post reveals an amazing lack of research. Here are some facts, with sources:


* A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time."

However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")

* Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws.

Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . . (T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.)

Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.)

In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.)

Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)

* U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:

England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed.

Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s."

All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.)

Now for the less cut-and-dried part:

American Founding Fathers such as John Adams and Patrick Henry greatly admired the Swiss militia, which helped inspire the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — the preference for a "well regulated militia" as "necessary for the security of a free state," and the guarantee of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Late in the 19th century, the American military sent observers to Switzerland in hopes of emulating the Swiss shooting culture.

On the other hand,

"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police will be more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."

Adolph Hitler, 1935


Any questions?

walkerboh4269

You raise some points that I have not thought of before. However the places that we are now fighting to keep from have these weapons are controlled in my opinion by madmen who use this weapons to subjugate their people.

What I advocate is nothing that is not spelled out in the constitution. I personal would not want to own or use chemical or nuclear weapons. I know how destructive they are. When I was in the Army my job was to detect and clean up after these weapons. I know the power they have.

I believe that their are madmen in the U.S. also that if given access to these type of weapons they would use them against us. If I want to live in a free society then that is a price I have to pay. "Anyone who would sacrifice security for freedom deserves neither." I forget who said that but it is something I believe. The way I understand the constitution the Founding fathers would not have believed in any restriction to our arms.

If in this country we followed the example of Israel and allow the common people to carry guns as it is written in the constitution I do be believe that we would be much safer than anything any President or the congress can do to protect us.

Unfortunately gun control seems to be to be just that all about control. The more restive the control become the easier it is to abuse the power over the people.

What most politicians forget is that the are their to represent us not push their personal beliefs on us because they know better than us peons.

guthmund

I couldn't possibly give a shit about the candidate's gun views because, in reality, they will never do anything to change the status quo. To take a political stand in either direction on the gun issue is essentially commiting political suicide.

So, regardless of their views, neither will perpetuate real change and therefore never affect me and consequently, I couldn't possibly care less about their positions.

All that being said, I don't think the government should have any say as to what weapons I want to own. Flamethrowers, land mines, assualt weapons and Surface to Air Missile batteries should all be free game. Hell, throw a tank in there for good measure. The fact is, it isn't what I own, it's what I do with it. I should be able to own all of the above, however, I should suffer the appropriate punishment for BBQing the neighbor, blowing up their roving dog or shooting down a rogue remote control airplane with a missile.

You can't possibly protect all of the people all of the time. You can't possibly legislate what the populace can and cannot have and still promote the idea of personal freedom. You can't have it both ways.

We have laws. Most are pretty clear cut and keep the peace. They are require proportional punishment for the crime. So, why the need for further punishment based on what I might do. Punish me for the crime. Nothing more nothing less.

Any attempt to prevent me from purchasing anything from anybody and the government becomes comparable to my mother and father. I've got parents. They're great. I'm not looking for a replacement pair.


Edit: I forgot to mention, before you (the reader) assume that I'm some pro-gun, militia joining, weapon stockpiling, bomb-making in the basement nut, that I own no guns at all. Not a single one.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

whocarz

While I agree with the rest of your post, this is not an actual quote. In fact, it is made up. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

However, here is an actual quote:

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

Randomly

Interesting quotes, whocarz.

daswig

Huh??? When has Kerry EVER failed to support a further restriction on the Second Amendment???

You DID see the pic of him, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Schumer leaving the Senate after scuttling the firearms manufacturer tort reform legislation, didn't you?

Kerry considers a M-91 Mosin Nagant bolt-action rifle to be an "assault rifle". If you really think Kerry doesn't support gun control, you haven't been paying attention.

daswig

This has been refuted. When they banned legal ownership of handguns in England and then confiscated them, what happened to England's handgun crime rate? It went up drastically. why? Because guns became a criminal status symbol, and people who smuggle in drugs can just as easily smuggle in guns.

In another post, you suggested that europe's far lower homicide rates are a result of gun control. That's not true. Look at the overall rate of homicides in Europe. They're far lower across the board, not just for gun-related homicides. If it was just the lack of guns, then they should have a lot more people killed by other methods, and they don't. Compare the number of people shot in the US and Europe, and you'll find that per capita a lot more are killed in the US. Compare the number of people bludgeoned to death in europe and the US, and you'll find that the US has a much higher rate. Do this for all weapons, and you'll find that they US has a far higher homicide rate regardless of the method of homicide. Given that, it ain't gun control causing the disparity, since lack of guns can't affect the number of people bludgeoned, et cetera.

daswig

mattevil, ever hear of a "photo op"?

If Kerry likes guns, why does he keep trying to take mine away from me?

daswig

Private Americans can and do already own nuclear weapons. It's heavily regulated, but legal. Of course, since they cost billions of dollars, most of the people who have them are engaged in dealings with the government for them. That's where the Government gets them.

got a few billion bucks to blow? Then you can get a nuke, if you follow the law and get all of the regulatory clearances. Now transferring them's another matter entirely. Don't forget, there's a $200 tax to ATF for a "destructive device" per warhead...