The three Democratic presidential candidates leading in most polls were in Iowa this past weekend. Radio Iowa’s microphone caught up with Edwards Friday night on the Iowa State Fairgrounds after he spoke to a Polk County Democrats gathering there. New York Senator Hillary Clinton talked with Radio Iowa after her Saturday morning appearance in a Marshalltown middle school then late Saturday afternoon Illinois Senator Barack Obama spoke with Radio Iowa just before he spoke to a gathering of community activists at the ICAN convention.
Each made a point of talking about gun rights, and none of the three endorsed such proposals as gun registration or a ban on handguns.
Read the text of their brief thoughts on gun control after the jump. Click on the Radio Iowa story, go to the bottom and you’ll find an audio link if you want to hear their comments. On Friday, Delaware Senator/Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said gun control can be a "liability" for Democrats if it goes too far. Here’s that Radio Iowa story — with an audio link at the bottom. Biden closes by saying: "I don’t agree with some in my party who are very, very strict on gun control issues."
DMR columnist David Yepsen: "Question on your rural proposal here. You said…"
Edwards: "Thank goodness somebody’s asking a question about my rural proposal." (Edwards laughed; do you think that was a mention of the stories on Friday about his $400 haircut?)
Yepsen: "This is Iowa. You said in here that you will also crack down on gun crimes. How?"
Edwards: "What we’re going to do is, I believe in the Second Amendment and I think it’s important for hunters rights to be protected and it’s part of my culture and the way I grew up, but I don’t think you need an AK-47 to hunt and I think there are a number of things that we can do including a renewal of the assault weapons ban, closing the gun show loophole so that we make sure that we have the information that we need. I would add to that that in light of what’s happened at Virginia Tech that we need to do a better job of making sure the registry that’s used for the instant check includes people who’ve had a history of some mental problems because it’s a spotted history but there was certainly some history about this gunman."
Yepsen: "Senator, this has been a difficult issue for Democrats, as you know."
Edwards: "It is."
Yepsen: "How do you balance it and does Virginia Tech change the topic…
Edwards: "The dynamic?"
Yepsen: "…and make it more acceptable for a Democrat to be for gun control?"
Edwards: "That’s a good question. I think that what’s acceptable is for Democrats and Democratic presidential candidates to actually say what they believe and for me, this is part of my culture. It’s the way I grew up and I think it is important to protect people’s Second Amendment rights but I think there’s a balance in it and there’s some weapons, particularly automatic weapons that included in the assault weapons ban, that are not necessary for sportsmen and hunters."
Another reporter in the group asked a question on a different topic.
Next, Hillary Clinton answers a couple of my questions:
Henderson: "In your last answer to the last question upstairs, you mentioned the ‘crazed killer’ at Virginia Tech. Do you think this situation has created a renewed environment for the debate about gun control, or is that still too sticky an issue for Democrats?"
Clinton: "Well, I think what it really raises is the need to enforce the laws that we already have and to work with states so that they have the resources and the specific requirements as to what they’re supposed to do. It’s come to light that Virginia hasn’t really enforced the provision in the Brady Bill to put information like being committed involuntarily, as the shooter was, into the database and then have the database effective enough so that it pops up if somebody tries to buy a gun so the first thing we ought to focus on is figuring out what’s gone wrong in actually enforcing all the laws we have and, you know, seeing if we can’t do a better job of that."
Henderson: "What about the assault weapons ban or restrictions on bullets?"
Clinton: "Well, there is evidence that I’ve read about that the killer had ammunition that would have been illegal under the assault weapons ban. You know, look, I think the balancing act is clear here to everybody. You have to balance Second Amendment rights against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and people who are unstable and that has always been what everyone I know has been seeking to accomplish and maybe this tragic incident will get us to think about how to get back to that balance."
Finally, here is the text of what Obama said during a Radio Iowa interview:
Henderson: "I’m wondering if what happened at Virginia Tech, in your opinion, might alter the debate about gun control."
Obama: "It’s early to make a full assessment on how this changes our politics and the public mood. I think all of us are still just overwhelmed with grief for the families and for Virginia Tech and obviously people here remember what happened at the university and how painful it can be (a reference to the shootings at the University of Iowa). I do think that the evidence so far at least indicates that you’ve got a young man who was mentally deranged, was identified as such, was temporarily committed and was still able to obtain handguns and so one critical question is, ‘What happened to our background check system? Why did it fail?’ and it seems like we should be able to come to some bipartisan agreement on making that background system, background check system work. The second area which may be fought by the NRA, but I think has to be looked at is the availability of 19-round clips. I’m a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I’m a believe in homeowners having a firearms to protect their home and their family. It’s hard for me to find a rationale for a 19-clip semi-automatic. I said at a forum earlier this week, ‘If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn’t be hunting’ and so that I think is something that we should be able to have a reasonable conversation about."
Henderson: "Do you think this is a prickly issue for Democrats?"
Obama: "The problem that we’ve had is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners use those firearms safely, secure them properly and I think would be amenable to reasonable gun control laws. The NRA’s attitude has been that any restriction is an infringement on the rights of gun owners and you know because of the breadth of their membership and the large amounts of money that they have at their disposal, I think they are oftentimes able to scare law-abiding gun owners into thinking that Democrats are going to take away their rights and part of what I think we have to communicate is that we are committed to maintaining the rights of lawful gun owners, but that doesn’t contradict the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or put limits on the accessibility of semi-automatic weapons or make sure that straw purchasers aren’t dumping firearms into our inner cities."
About O.Kay Henderson
Kay is a founding member of the Radio Iowa network newsroom. In 1994, she became the network’s news director. She’s a featured reporter and commentator on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press,” and the 2002 recipient of the Shelley Award.
Well, let’s see…..
For Edwards…. The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) didn’t ban ANY automatic weapons.
For Clinton…. The AWB didn’t ban ANY types of ammo.
For Obama…. I’m going to presume you meant “19 round MAGAZINE”, as a “19-clip semi-automatic” would be INCREDBILY heavy, as 95 rounds, in 5-round clips (standard size for an ammo clip) would be almost impossible to use, due to weight alone.
That being said, the Walther P22, and Glock 17 Cho used had 10 and 15 round magazines, respectively.
Since I just presented my 14 year old with a Stevens Model 25, .22 semi-automatic rifle for use with close supervision, something that fathers have done through the ages as a start to proper gun ownership. My question/comment to the candidates is this, you mention the ban of semi-auto weapons in general, am I to assume this includes said .22 and any other semi-auto regardless of use, ie semi-auto hunting rifles such as a Remington Model 7400? It’s this kind of general language that puts those of us that legally own and use firearms on the opposite side of the fence from you. Secondly, why is it that the same rifle that’s considered an assault weapon in my hands is just another rifle in the hands of a law enforcement officer, this particular idea is something I’ve pondered for years without an answer.
Ditto to the above. People think democrats will take their guns from them because the democrats don’t even know their info most of the time and have such loose language in what they say needs to change. No, you don’t need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, but you might need 19 rounds to protect yourself from an attacker. Guns aren’t just about hunting. It’s also personal safety. I hate to say it because even though I am a gun owner I don’t really like guns all that much-but the reality is that there are people out there who have guns and who want to do criminal things with those guns so I feel that I need to even that playing field in order to feel comfortable. There isn’t anything I can think of that is as effective as a semi-auto or a pump action shotgun at scaring off a potential criminal.
It’s about time that someone put a stop to people having all these guns! If we ban guns, ALL of them, all of our crime problems would be solved! I mean, there are people in this world who rob, rape, burn, steal and pillage, and all we have to do is tell these people, “Look, NO MORE GUNS!”. Then, they will surely stop robbing, raping, burning and pillaging! See, if they know that the average citizen can’t have a gun in his home to protect himself, they will feel too guilty to storm the home and rape, burn, and pillage there! And, see, even the VERY FEW of them, the really hardcore ones who would try to get guns anyway despite the fact that they were banned will never be able to get their hands on any once they were outlawed! When they do finally get outlawed, it will be impossible to smuggle any into the country so we know that no criminals will have any!
I tell you what, we need to go ahead and make cocaine, heroin and stuff like that illegal, too, and then our society would be a LOT better off because no one would ever use drugs again…and, like the gun issue, the few who would want to would not be able to get any if they were against the law, because there wouldn’t be any on US soil! Damn, why didn’t we do this before!
Now that I think about it, it would probably be a good idea to criminalize molesting children, stealing, and a host of other terrible things…then, in the blink of an eye, UTOPIA!
Who is going to protect us when our guns are banned. Do you really believe the criminals are going to tip toe in and hand theirs over? It is time to stop dreaming up ideals and live in the real world
i was looking online for a school project and ran acrost a small comment by obama that said”band all semi atomatic weapons” banding ALL semi auto guns wouldnt make a differns. that wont stop kids from coming to schools with guns! in some case’s it will just agrravate them to do it more as an act of rebeling.
As for “Utopia” being no more guns, you couldn’t be more incorrect, sir (or ma’am).
What do you think will happen if every gun was banned?
First off, the people would go absolutely crazy. The constitution would be have to be re-amended, and hunters and gun-owners would protest all over the world. They’d hoard and keep their guns, possibly starting massive scale riots and disaster.
Plus, there are HUNDREDS of other weapons for a deranged lunatic to use. Unless you wanted to ban, say, all kitchen and chef knives, dynamite, grenades, explosives of any kind, flamethrowers, chainsaws, swords, and the list goes on and on and on.
And even then ,some people can make dangerous explosives using only household items. So what then?
CHAOS, that’s what.
The Dems comments above are very telling in that they all pay lip service to hunters and then justify their reasons to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights, but the 2nd Amendment isn’t about duck hunting! Our founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution as a safeguard for us, the citizens to have the ability to defend ourselves, our families, our property and our country from attackers foreign and domestic and even to overthrow our own government if the need arose. THAT’S what the 2nd amendment provides us. In 1787 Thomas Jefferson said, “From time to time the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants- it is its natural manure”. He knew that if the people were disarmed they would have no means to preserve the Constitution or their freedoms- after all, the 2nd Amendment is the only way we (citizens) can protect the rest of the Bill of Rights and that’s why we need rifles with “19 round clips”.
I am 13 years old and i have firearms for hunting and self defence. i beleave we have a right to own firearms for hunting. maybe clinton should upgrade the registration on weapons. i love this sport of hunting please dont take it away!
I personally am inclined to agree most with Barack Obama here. I own firearms. I’ve been trained with them since I was five years old. I know exactly how to responsibly use one and I think it is my privilege to do so, but I *DO NOT* think it is necessary for people to own automatic weapons. There is no need for a private citizen to own one. A lot of people may argue that we need them for defense against invasion or to fight back against our own government if necessary and site documents from over 200 years ago to justify it. I say this: Since then numerous changes have been undergone in our political process to insure that all changes that may need to be made in our government can be made without the use of force. (see Shay’s Rebellion/Thje Whiskey Rebellion/The Civil War) Secondly, the last time an invasion by a foreign power occurred was when the Japanese invaded Alaska (which at the time wasn’t even a state)in 1942, which was fought by this little thing called the US Army.
In this day and age it’s not those who are buying guns for hunting and defense that are the issue. It’s people who want to own firearms for the distinct purpose of doing harm to another human being. Moreover than restricting the legal purchase of firearms, candidates should be pursuing the even more dangerous illegal purchase of firearms. The vast majority of dealers are doing the background checks and following procedure but if a 15 year old kid can buy a used .38 for $100 off “a guy they know” then what’s the point?
On the flip side however, I do think he is overstepping it a little as to outlawing semiautomatic firearms. I see little reason for that.
Amazing! A whole country living in fear of each other, not able to contemplate life without gun ownership. I am over 50, have lived in Germany,Austria,India,Canada,Japan and now in Australia. I have never! lived in a home or known anyone who ever needed to live with a gun! Create sensible gun laws, create a “fair go” society and stop being afraid of each other, for goodness sake!
The reason the leftists keep making these mistakes about guns (e.g. “19-clip semiautomatic”) is that they never bother to do any real-world research. Can anyone who is against “civilian ownership of automatic weapons” tell us the statistics on crimes committed with legally-owned machineguns? What laws regulate civilian ownership of machineguns, and when were they passed?
Sure, leftists love guns, in movies and on t-shirts. Can you picture a faux-Muslim promising to introduce segregation at the point of his M1 Carbine? Leftist hero (and former pimp, though Spike Lee didn’t see fit to mention it).
People who actually know anything about guns are overwhelmingly anti-gun control, just as people who have driven in cars rarely want them banned. And the people who want to ban a category of a gun because it isn’t needed can certainly explain whether or not cars are “needed” – humanity certainly can survive without cars, and guns, and free speech, and antibiotics. Certain individual humans cannot.
it is insane to think that any candidate should be for the ban on assault weapons. This county is built on the idea that if the government becomes too powerful that the people have the duty to overthrow that government. How could the people over throw a tyrant leader without access to the same weapons that the tyrant has? According to the bill of rights, “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.” how can the people have a militia if they do not have weapons? Also if you think that the government should be in charge of providing weapons for the militia, how is that going to happen if a tyrant leader tells the states to pull all of those weapons?
It just doesn’t make any sense.
Sure there should be some gun control, people who have killed, are mentally ill, or have been convicted of violent crime should be very closely examined before they are allowed to buy weapons, and most of them should not be allowed to.
On the topic of conceal and carry laws, i agree that you should have to be 21 to do this, but it should never be taken away, and should be encouraged. Think that if a thief went into a bank with a gun and 1/4 of the people had a pistol do you think that the robber is going to get away?
No they wont.
you have the right to disagree with me and i would love to talk to people about this but before you contradict me, do some research for yourself and then decide for your self.
I personally own approx. 70 firearms. Yes, many of these guns are assalt rifles and yes in the hands of the wrong people they can be very dangerous. But what people dont take the time to consider is the fact that the majority of gun owners are not criminals. They are respectful law obiding citizens who would never imagine harming anyone else. Its the 1 or 2 percent of people in this country that make rest of us look bad. Believe me, there is nothing, more thrilling fireing of a few rounds out of an AR-15 or AK-47 (in a very safe and and controlled environment). Those of us who own wepons shouuld not have to pay for the actions of criminals. The sport of shooting is alive and well,and it needs to stay that way forever!!!!
Here is the long and short of it. Firearms are a HUGE part of our history. If it were not for firearms in the hands of good people we would not have a country. Now before anyone gets on here and starts complaining that these are different times and we aren’t trying to fight to form our own government – chill out. Granted gun crime is a terrible thing – but you have to remember that it is not the gun that commits the crime – it is the person with that gun. I am a police officer and I have seen this stuff – if the guy doesn’t have a gun he uses a knife, a bat, a beer bottle – whatever he has at his disposal. Taking away our “19-clip semi-automatics” (whatever that is supposed to be) isn’t going to stop those who illegitimately have these weapons from using them. If anything they will be more likely to use them because they know the chance of receiving deadly opposition has been restricted/removed. There are plenty of people out there who should not have these weapons, I won’t argue that – but use your heads when it comes to making laws to address the issues. Good people should have the right to own firearms for protection and for sport(including those “19-clip semi-automatics”)
I want my automatic weapons available to kill people who would otherwise kill, hurt or ravage me. Not for hunting. Many may think that Guns have no place in a civil society and they have a good point under this ideal premise. However, a civil society can quickly break down under a verity of situations. When the existing structures of “protection” break down, we are left at our own device. As a cival citizen, I do not want my future options for protection taken away from me.
What would our world be without guns? How would we protect ourselves? If we had a knife and they had a knife they would probably be able to kill us because most of the time they are stronger and faster. If you’ve correctly fired a gun at least once you know how to use it. With a knife you don’t know all the fancy cuts and attacks to defend yourself. Besides do you really think that criminals would hand over their guns? I don’t think so buddy. It would just make people rebel more and use guns to get guns back.
I think the ‘right to bear arms’ is a fundamental American tradition. Having a gun in the home has always been the last line of defense for the nation. Most of us would rather put up with a few crazies running around with guns than give up our own freedom to own a gun. Beyond this, many of us like to hunt and this is the next reason why I would never give up my right to bear arms no matter which way the nation decided to go on this issue. ‘The right to bear arms’ is intrinsic and fundamental to being American and I won’t have anything to do with a candidate that doesn’t support this right. As long a a person as been adjudicated ‘competent’ by the competent medical authorities, in America, he should be able to buy firearms to use in a competent way…which includes to have a gun for home and personal security and to hunt with, or to use for target practice as a sport.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with providing the means for the people to defend themselves and, if need be, overthrow a corrupt government. It does not say “the right to keep and bare hunting arms,” it says arms. Basically the democrats want to take away our rights because they think they can protect us. Tell that to the 3 families’ houses that got broken in to earlier this year here locally. Their possessions were stolen and their illusion of safety demolished, and the Dem’s would take their right to protect themselves with a firearm simply because they live in the city, as Hussein Obama would put it.
I am member of the architectural design community; a culture of mostly liberal minded folks generally opposed to private sector gun ownership. I really believe that as young people have been raised in households without exposure to guns, many of these very bright young folks see firearms as unessessary. Of the thirty members of the firm that employs me, I am the only veteran. The age range of our architectural firm is 24 to 60 years old. I am in my 50’s.
My father taught me firearms safety long before I was allowed to fire. As a child I was taught that firearm ownership brought with it a very high level of responsibilty. This was reinforced throughout my early years of shooting with Dad. My military training adddressed these issues as well. Safety. Even during combat operations
I own a post-ban semi-auto AR-15. I own a semi-auto .22 caliber target rifle and a .308. I own an “old school” pump shotgun and some other rifles. Arthritis has made accuracy with a handgun rather difficult; therefore I no longer carry although permitted to do so. I have met a great number of wonderful folks who shoot for sport; much like some folks play golf. Some hunt and some do not. I am not a hunter. I relax when at the range and tight groups make me happy. Some of the current gun laws don’t. These laws seem to be founded out of ignorance rather than facts.
The ban on fully automatic firearms may make sense. I really don’t see a civilian need for a “machine gun”. Semi-auto firearms allow a fired bullet with each trigger pull. This allows rapid-fire competition without as much accidental discharge risk. I really don’t see how limiting the capacity of a magazine is requisite to public saftey. I think firearms education is; as is absolute enforcement of laws already “on the books”. Use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, to threaten anyone; or even simply possession of a firearm by a felon is already illegal. Wanna make some new laws? Fine. Let’s increase the penalties for these violations. Let these people serve sntences consecutively, not concurrently. The current federal firearms laws are sufficient, in my opinion. Some of the local and State laws are, again in my opinion, silly.
In Connecticut there is a two week wait to purchase a rifle without a valid hunter’s license or a handgun permit. Maybe this is not a bad thing, even though the required FBI check can be done in minutes. Connecticut requires a pistol permit to buy a handgun; even for a firearm that may never leave one’s home. However, the permit to simply buy a handgun also is a permit to carry it concealed. In fact, it mandates concealment; as loss of a permit may occur should you accidentally expose your gun and someone observes it, becomes alarmed and notifies authorities. Possibly reaching for an object at the top shelf of a store could be problematic.
What I am trying to say here is this: Unauthorized / illegle possession should bring severe consequences. That the purchase of a handgun to defend one’s home should not necessarily allow, by mandate, a person to also carry a concealed and loaded firearm. A shotgun may provide better home defense anyway. Concealed carry permits should be given only to folks who are highly trained and stable. That random “sniper” acts have occured before…and may unfortunately occur again. In rural Iowa or in downtown New Haven which is the birthplace of both Winchester and Yale Univerity. Prohibiting guns capable of repeat fire will not prevent these wanton random acts. That guns really do not kill people. People do. Legislation should reflect that. The legal possession, storage and use of any firearm is a responsibilty not to be lightly taken. That the more legal restrictions placed upon law abiding and highly responsible citizens will not stop criminals from obtaining weapons that these same citizens cannot. There’s more. More than I can organize into thought here. We’ve all said “where’s a cop when you need one?” I’d hate to say that while dialing 911 and standing over an innocent’s body after a shooting that I may have been able to prevent…if only I had a gun.
Does the government REALLY believe that criminals go and purchase legal weapons, pass FBI’s NICS background check, and then go get a their CCW? And think they can prevent their crimes by adding and toughening such regulations? Or taking firearms away from us responsible citizens? Clearly Bill Clinton’s Assault Weapons Ban didnt reduce any crimes…………..
Well, let’s see…..
As a non-US citizen I can’t believe how Americans in 2008 still cling to their weapons while trying to police and moralize the rest of the world. Although the US has a unique culture and history – certainly when it comes to guns – I wonder if Americans ever consider why almost no other country in the world allows people to bear arms, especially fire arms. The US has one of if not the highest gun killing rates in the world for a country that is not at (civil) war.
Do you really believe that weapons make a society safer? Strictly licensed weapon possession for hunting and sports is allowed in most countries of the world, but the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is really unique.
It is one thing when a politician changes his mind on an issue, but Obama is too much. He tells different audiences very different things and is getting away with it.
In a highly liberal fund raiser in San Francisco, he belittles people who, “cling to their guns”. When asked, he said the DC gun ban was constitutional.
When in Iowa, he tries to sound like he is taking a middle of the road position acceptable to Iowans, but listen more carefully, “The problem that we’ve had is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners use those firearms safely, secure them properly and I think would be amenable to reasonable gun control laws.” I’m sorry, responsible, law abiding citizens is a problem?? In his mind, it probably is, after all, if the overwhelming majority of gun owners were homicidal maniacs, I am sure that would make it easier to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
When the Supreme court struck down the DC ban as unconstitutional, he said he was pleased that “the Supreme Court basically agrees with me.” Uh, check again Mr. Obama, they said it was Unconstitutional and you said it was.
Or he said he supported his radical paster, then he dumped his 20 year friendship when it became politically damaging as the truth about those 20 years became known.
If only we had journalists with backbone…
I am an NRA certified instructor and training counselor (I train instructors)who teaches law enforcement and personal concealed handgun classes. In my concealed handgun classes I see people from every walk of life. In the last few years I have seen the male/female ratio make a big turn to mostly women. When I talk to these women about WHY they are wanting to carry a weapon for self protection I hear some really scary stories about ex-husbands, stalkers, ex-boyfriends, etc. So, do you think that these women should not be able to carry a personally owned handgun that they have sought professional training to carry? Should they not have that tool available to them to protect their lives and the lives of their children? Do you think that calling “911” will save their lives once an attack is happening?
Why should we as free citizens have to rely on the gov’t. to protect us from harm? We are free, and we have the RIGHT to defend our own lives and the lives of our family members from attack. No matter if you are a woman or a man and you want to protect yourself, why should someone like Obama tell you, that we should have the tools of protection taken from us? Shame on our gov’t. for taking ANY single freedom from us!!
All the liberal folks in this country would flip and riot if the gov’t. started limiting what words you can use, how many words, and saying that you can not use words that might hurt anyone. If the 1st. ammendment were censored they would lose it. They are all about limiting rights, as long as it is not the rights that they want left alone.
Oh, and I have had to rely on my personally owned semi-auto handguns with large capacity magazines to keep me safe two different times. Both times I used them to end very serious encounters without firing a single shot. Should I not have the right to keep myself alive? I would definately be dead today if not for my firearms.
Steven is right ! A good place to start with “gun control” would be to demilitarize the police. They try to scare the bejeezus out of you with crime stats and then want to take away your ability to protect yourself. I don’t guess I will have anyone to vote for this time…
In response to J. Gallows, if you didn’t need to fire a single shot, why did you need the large-capacity magazine? If it’s a case where your gun only accepts large-cap mags, that’s one thing, but if your handgun accepts a lower-capacity mag, then clearly- since you fired not a single shot, you would have been just as safe, no?
Capacity aside, I think Mr. Rashba has a much better stance, though- the majority of the laws we have on the books are reasonable if enforced, but we need to insist that our laws are being upheld and we need to insist upon those laws being of sound design.
The criminal does not care about laws. A person that wants to rob a bank isnt going to get to the door, see the sign that says no firearms, and not rob the bank because they dont want to break the law. If they dont care that they are going to rob a bank, why would they care about a sign that says you cant have a firearm? Do people honestly believe that somebody is going to go to a gun store to buy a gun to rob a bank? They are going to get the gun from elsewhere. If there are security guards at the bank, what are they going to do? Nothing. They are going to be the first target suppressed. If a bank had a sign on the door that said “please carry your gun concealed in this financial institution”, do you think that bank would have a high risk of being robbed? Hell no! They know there are people in there with guns that will shoot a robber. How many gun stores do you know of that get robbed? Has there ever been one?
It’s impossible to pass and enforce laws like that now anyway. The criminals have a large portion of the guns and would not just turn them in, if a law was passed to make ownership of handguns illegal.
In that instance, the law abiding citizen would be in deep danger because the criminal would know very few people could stop a crime being committed by someone carrying a gun.
It’s much more feasible in a small country. In a larger country, it would be necessary to almost become a police state for awhile to do something like ban handguns. That is contra to everything we stand for.
I think the “leaders” in Washington need to be reminded of that little saying how does it go again? oh yeah “of the people by the people and for the people” they need to listen better and stop refering to themselves as our leaders rather than our representatives.
When will the knucklehead Liberal Dems understand that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting?? If you ban these guns, only the criminals will have them. ( Ill keep mine anyhow thank you) regular Joe Schmoe will not have access to them, but bad guys will. Crime would go up, and up and up. (Think England…After gun control)
Besides, what country in their right mind would try to invade the US?? Im sure the 40 million rednecks out in the woods could handle a invading army with our hunting rifles. I happen to hunt with a Ar15.
A Little Gun History Lesson
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————-
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————— ———–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.
With Guns………..We Are “Citizens”.
Without Them……..We Are “Subjects”.
During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!
Which is more dangerous, a car or a gun?
There were 42,836 people killed in 2004. By Motor Vehicle Accidents. (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx)
There were 29,569 people killed in 2004 by guns. (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html)
More people committed suicide than homicide.
So basically I’m seeing that it is more dangerous to drive a car than it is to own a gun! And that if people own a gun they are more likely to kill themselves than kill someone else. So why is it that we need to infringe on the right to bear arms? Oh, yeah, because people are afraid of what they aren’t familiar with. Be it change or guns.
To compare death statistics between guns and cars is absolutely ridiculous. Sure, more people die in car accidents, but what about a figure comparing the hours using a gun, to the hours driving a car?
The point is, the number of deaths caused by firearms (no-matter what the actual figure) can be reduced with carefully thought legislation and that should be the main concern.
i thought automtic weapons where illegal? oh yeah they are. i see people refering to semi automatic firearms as automatic. there is a difference, get it right.so am i supposed to believe that i can’t hunt with a semi auto matic rifle,only a bolt action, or a single shot?please!!!
There is a reason to own a 19 round clip, and semi. If you are a target shooter, that’s my interest. It is very annoying to reload guns. Very annoying. The larger clip I can have, without jamming(some banana clips do that), the better. I think we need to stop being fearful and reducing the rights of others. How many of us feel that the government does restrict us in some sort of way. Gay marriage, gun rights, ease to form a buisness, or construct a simple personal structure. if it is more that 20% of us, I think we already have 40, we need to back off, and that includes from those on the other side of the political system from us. And about semis. Most people misunderstand what one is. It just means I don’t have to pull back on the bolt and jam it forward every shot. That is very important if I’ve already got my self in the position I like. Is that so hard to ask for? Not having one minute per shot. If you use a bolt it can take that long if you count loading, operating the bolt, getting in position, aiming. Thats to long for the technology we have and too restrictive. Sure most gun owners are hunters even though I’m not. But you just have to attack the fray and then we have far less rights for future generations. Not all gun owners are hunters and those are not the only citizens we need to watch rights for.