There is always a GF reference for different subjects huh?

Why not? After all this basically is a Godfather board.

At one time I owned: a .22 pistol, a .38 snub nose, a .44 magnum revolver, a 20 gauge shotgun, a 12 gauge shotgun, a .410 gauge shotgun, a 30/30 rifle with a 9x50 scope, and a .22 long rifle Winchester. Now I'm down to just the 3 shotguns, having sold all the others to a commercial gun shop to buy groceries when times were tough. The .44 was for protection and deer hunting. The other 2 handguns were inherited following a family member's death, as were 2 of the handguns.

I am a believer in the Second Amendment (obviously!), but I do think we need some tougher gun laws in light of the ease with which the Virgina Tech prick bought a 9mm pistol and walked out with it in just 10 minutes. I don't think anyone should be able to buy even a BB gun that quickly.

Not even a BB.Net gun?

I do not get this whole second ammendment thing. We already have gun control. I do not think people are allowed to own machine guns, hand held rocket launchers, tanks, cannons or nuclear weapons. It is not a matter of whether or not guns should be controlled, it is a matter of degree. Who really needs a 9mm automatic handgun with a clip the size of the one that nut job in Virginia had?

Okay, from the desk of the professor. One thing most people forget when discussing the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution (byt he way, they are the same document) generally is Original Intent. When those words were written, debated, and voted upon, what did the writers, debators, and voters believe they meant? Well, put yourself back in the late 18th century. Do you think there was any discussion of gun control back then? None that I've discovered in the notesd of James Madison or Rufus King (to name a couple) at the Constitutional Convention or inthe ratifying conventions or state legislatures. A gun was essential to life back then as a vehicle is today. When James Madison presented the future Second Amendment to the first US Congress, its members and he were concerned solely with the ability of States to raise military forces to oppose any suppressive activity by the newly created Federal government.

For either side in the gun control debate to claim the Second Amendment as propagating or protecting their position in the debate is erroneous.

"Freedom of Religion" has also been taken out of its original context, too, along with the phrase "separation of church and state" which doesn't even appear in the Bill of Rights at all, btw. So, it's cool to use these convenient "rights" when it suits an agenda, but to cling to the Second Amendment because it's supposedly not what the original framers meant is wrong? I smell another double standard.

At any rate, I'd hazard a guess that most all of the original founders had at least one gun, used for hunting if nothing else. If there are any rights not touched on in the Constitution which should be discussed today, I thnk it should be the right to drive a vehicle. There are a lot of folks out there who shouldn't be driving, and God knows they kill a lot more people in this country than guns, accidental or otherwise!

Do you they give you any sort of test you have to take before getting a gun permit? I haven't heard of one, just a test on gun safety and laws. It wouldn't be a complete solution but a good step.

Stiffer penalties for having an unregistered or stolen gun without a permit.

Or like Chris Rock says....Charge $5,000 per bullet.

There is one significant (though not necessarily convenient) way for Americans to deal with issues - Constitutional amendment. In lieu of an amendment we rely on our federal judicial system to render opinions about Original Intent and the extent to which it should govern the Constitution's interpretation.

Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution (NPR radio just said that Cho was involuntarily committed)is denied a firearms application.

So.. either the database that the background check searches wasn't properly updated by someone, so Cho wasn't properly flagged, or the dealer didn't do a proper background check or ignored the results of that check.

Are the existing laws just aren't being enforced?

Another bigger point.This guy should have been institutionalized to protect society, yet he was not. A VA court had identified him as a potential threat to society, yet he was not institutionalized. His parents were seeking help for him and he was not institutionalized. (unfortunately, since the 80s, we no longer institutionalize people like Cho because doing so would be too much of a tax burden).

Yeah, much better that they run loose, victimize/kill someone, then we lock 'em in jail and they can drain tax money THAT way.

It's a shame, no matter where you stand on which issue. The let's-hang-em-all crowd (of which I tend to lean) can't say a word because this guy got a gun in 10 minutes; and the let's-rehab-'em-all crowd can't say a word because this guy slipped through the psychiatric/civil cracks. It always seems when something this devastating occurs, there were red flags all over, but nobody sees 'em.

I don't understand why you take any solace in red flags as a solution to problems. Ours is a hugely complex societal system governed by a national constitution and 50 state constitutions not to mention federal and state statutes and court interpretationsof those constitutions and statutes. This Nation's founding fathers and the founding fathers of the 50 states wrote constitutional documents that inveiged against the oppressions and suppressions of government, not individuals. They feared government. Psychiatric hospitalization has been used and abused to oppress and suppress in this Nation. There is ample historical documentation of same, particularly the sterilization of the mentaly retarded in various states brought about by government action and personal avarice.

That's my whole point: spotting the red flags is obviously not working. All I was saying was that everytime something like this happens, "hindsight is 20/20." We find ourselves saying, "we-shoulda', we-coulda'," etc. And, as you observed, how many times have authorities thought they saw a red flag and it cost someone time in jail, time in an institution, cost them cash, or even cost them his/her life.

Look, I don't have an answer. But I know that both ends of the spectrum on the gun issue are going to have to find middle ground. It won't be a cure-all, but it won't hurt, either.

Yeah, we're real fond of that not-killing thing.

Well the two posts before yours, Snake, say it all.

On one hand some believe that we have not institutionalized people like Cho because there are those factions who look at doing so as a tax burden.

Then on the other hand, there are some who believe that if we do institutionalize people like Cho, there is the other faction that look at doing so as a violation of constitutional rights.

Either way you slice it, the United States of America leads the world in gun deaths. Can that be a coincidence? Can it be that the other countries all have something in their water that keeps them from shooting one another??

By the way, since someone mentioned motor vehicle deaths here earlier (sorry, can't remember who it was), I thought that this statistic from the CDC's website was interesting:

>>Injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years in the United States. More than half (55%) of all injury-related deaths are caused by motor vehicles and firearms. Although the number of deaths from motor-vehicle crashes has exceeded those from firearms, since 1968, differences in the number of deaths have declined: from 1968 through 1991, motor-vehicle- related deaths decreased by 21% (from 54,862 to 43,536) while firearm-related deaths increased by 60% (from 23,875 to 38,317).<<

In the following report, they found that suicide among adolescents was three times the average in a home where a gun is kept and that in homes where guns were kept, the owner was several times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. Actual Causes of Death in the US, 1993

It's reached a point where even we who are of the hardcore gun-rights crowd simply cannot keep spouting the same rhetoric and hope that ignoring the real problem will just go away. I actually prefer to see myself as a FORMER HARDCORE "gun-rights" crowd member. Now, don't everyone pee their breeches...I'm not for totally banning guns. But it's getting harder to toe the mark on this matter when there are so many tragedies associated with irresponsible people with guns. Yeah, I still believe the mantra, "guns don't kill people: people kill people." But stating the obvious contributes nothing to the issue. The fact is, there ARE too many guns out there, and they ARE too easy to access, and something has to be done.

Snake, you and I are agreeing WAY too much lately.

As I opined above, Original Intent regarding the 2nd amendment does allow federal and state governments to restrict firearm availability, acquisition, and bearing. Strictly speaking, the 2nd amendment only constrains the acts and actions of the federal government. In Texas, Article 1 contains language that allows the State Legislature to regulate the bearing of arms which it has done.

Notwithstanding any of that, common sense in this pluralistic, mobile, and huge (300 million people) American society dictate that we have to have some controls on firearm availability, acquisition, and bearing.

Well, you're a bigger target than what Cheney shoots at.

But smaller than the targets Dubya aims for.

I'm a little late to the Boards tonight, but olivant raises an excellent point.

The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the protection of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That dependent clause in the beginning of the sentence is significant. The founding fathers are pretty darn concise in the Bill of Rights, and didn't throw phrases around haphazardly. Whatever your position on gun control, I think that those, who profess that the Second Amendment prevents the government from regulating the sale and distribution of firearms, are on shaky ground. After all, even waiting periods for owning handguns, finger printing and registrations are governmental obstacles or infringements on the right to bear arms. If this right were absolute, as some argue, these restrictions would be unconstitutional, but they are not.

I also agree with olivant that the Bill of Rights was created because of the Founding Father's mistrust of government. They believed in specific truths and rights, and their fear was that there would be instances when the government or a majority of the nation would favor denying rights to unpopular causes or individuals. Essentially, the Bill of rights serves to protect the minority (and I'm not speaking racially here) from the majority.

What can I say, Sicilian Babe? I'm getting mellow in my old age!

And in my old age, I must be listing to the right a little. Common ground, isn't that what you mentioned?

With all respect to Dubya, I believe it's small minds that he aims for. Well, at least that's what he depends on.

I own several guns plus I happen to be a life member of the NRA, as well as a life member of the NAHC.

I own the following guns.

410 gauge shotgun
20 gauge shotgun
.357 Magnum
.44 Magnum
.243 rifle
.22 rifle
A Black powder rifle
9mm
.45

I use them for hunting, target shooting(I've found it's a great way to relieve stress) and personal protection. I keep all of them unloaded and locked up, with the exception of my 45 which is on my headboard with the magazine already inserted but no bullet chambered.

I have no kids just thought I'd toss that out before someone on this board got a little hyper about kids and accidental firearm deaths.

I believe gun control and more laws restricting gun ownership IS NOT THE ANSWER TO SITUATIONS INVOLVING THIS NUTCASE. All the gun laws do is it affects the law abiding citizens. Now my state finally passed a concealed carry permit law(took them long enough) as soon as I get some time I'm going to apply for my permit.

I've never had to use my gun for self protection and I hope I never get put in that situation. But as the old saying goes better safe than sorry.

Now if anyone says that we have the police for protection as it's their job. That's your view and of course your welcome to it, but no way in hell will I ever get rid of my guns and then call the police(if such a case should happen) and then hope and prey the police arrive before I or my wife(should I ever get married) gets shot or raped.

I read that the average response time for the police to respond to a call is 45 minutes, hell it's faster getting a pizza delivered.

Sorry for going off like that, but guns is a very important issue to me and I happen to take it seriously.

I have personally never owned a gun, although years ago my husband was shooting at tin cans or something and I did shoot one. I didn't like the feeling. It seemed to jerk my body back and I felt out of control. Coming from the Midwest many of my relatives were hunters, and I have no problem with that.
Heck, I don't even know any of the guns you guys are describing here.

All that being said, if someone wanted to own a gun, there must be something more done to see that these don't get in the wrong hands. Granted, it's unrealistic to think that someone somewhere that shouldn't, gets a hold of a gun. At the very very least, make the waiting time longer and do a more thorough background check. Like I said, I'm no expert, and don't believe that even stricter guidelines will deter every nutcase from getting a gun, but there should be some tightening of the screws I think.

TIS

I have a Walther PPK.

Just a note about the 2nd amendment. It's clauses were switched. When James Madison proposed it fromthe floor of the House of Representatives, it started out with the right to bear arms clause. The Congress switched the clause so that the amendment started with the militia clause. There's not much info on why. Some beleive it was to emphasize the States' right to have military forces.

I never knew that (and I have done a bit of work on Madison and the Bill of Rights). I'm not surprised though, given the trouble Madison had just getting them to debate the enumerated rights in the first place...it may have been a concession to have the militia part reversed.