What Should The Feds Do About Gun Control?

From the news coverage, the issue of gun control seems the most pressing need these days – not only in Washington, but in many state capitols. So let’s hear what readers think. This week’s online poll question is:“What should the feds do about gun control?"

Be sure to leave your thoughts in the comments section.

Discuss this poll 47

Anonymous
on Feb 12, 2013

Read the second amendment. The government, neither national or state has the right or jurisdiction to pass gun laws.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

These choices do nothing to keep criminals from getting guns. All they do is punish law abiding people. If guns are ban the criminals will still have theirs. When gun manufacturers are shut down the black market will flourish, China and Russia and most countries in SA would be glad to smuggle weapons into the US and sell them tax free. Timothy Mc Veigh did not use guns and killed a lot of people," where there is a will, there is a way".

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Several tragic events have occured in recent history, but we forget that today they killed 5000 unborn infants that have ten toes ten fingers and a beating heart. Two centuries ago Romans left unwanted babies on a rock wall where some could go and save them, but technology has progressed to the poin where we don't have that opportunity any longer.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

The answer is to ban all creepy movies and video games. Freedom of the media requires common sense and it doesn't imply any more than political debate.
We also need to get back to good old fashion spanking to control children's attitudes and throw these mind-destroying psychotropic drugs out the window!
Also, we need to reinstate the death penalty full-force everywhere for all convicted murderers. These mass-killers will put a bullet in their own head, but they sure don't want anyone else controlling their fate like that. Train employees to shoot and put sniper weapons in every school and business!
The breakup of the family by way of child support laws, temporary assistance, etc., has forced Dads out of their Children's lives! Almost guarantee you these mass murderer's biological fathers didn't have a clue what their kid was up to!
One of our very first freedoms is our 'right of revolution'; and our right to have modern weapons is paramount upon that.
If you really want a fourth 'reich', then take guns away from persons with metal issues first, then all the rest will begin to fall into place for you!

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

There is and has been a sizable group of people who were dedicated to gun control, I. e. assault weapon, large capacity magazines and many other guns, long before the unfortunate shooting of school children and public officials. They have now been able to use these situations to boost their agendas and are going to take full advantage of them. Gun owners must help educate the non shooting public that the legal ownership of guns is not a threat but a safeguard for the general public.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

I don't understand why some people think what works good for them is good for me. No I don't need 30 rounds for hunting,but I like 30 rounds for sport and competitive shooting,and MY FAMILIES PROTECTION!! Have you ever been in A fire fight with your six shooter in the dark half asleep with your adrenaline running. Out of 6 you might get lucky with 2. As an Iraq combat veteran I truly understand the NEED of a 30 round mag.I could not live with myself knowing that my family was raped and murdered because I was limited in the number of rounds i carry in my home defense weapon. What if an intruder has 30 and you only can have 10 by law? YOU LOOSE!! Has anyone thought of the economic impact of all these ban's people are proposing?There are dozens of small businesses that are producing weapons and accessories that employ hundreds of people.The competitive shooting sports are growing by leaps and bounds.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Great I like this comment. All the laws anyone can come up with will not stop someone with a mind set to go out and kill someone. The only thing it would do is stop law abiding people from owning these weapons that they use for self protection and sports shooting. We have lots of coyotes in our area and people hunt them to keep them away from their cattle at calving time. They will come into your calving area and take a new born calf in a minute. Leave our guns alone. Try to pass laws that prevent the Deranged & and the Criminals has no results yet. This is a real problem , but don't pass a law that only takes away law abiding people rights.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

No one seems to realize that it's already against the law to kill people. Don't abuse law abiding folks by picking on guns.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

The people who say that,"only the military needs assault weapons," or "they don't need 30 round magazines and therefore nobody else needs them either..." are missing the whole point of the second amendment. The second amendment protects all the other amendments and as Patrick Henry stated, "Firearms are the American people's liberty teeth!" To gain our independence we had to have the ability to match firepower with our oppressors. To keep our liberties secure we still must have that freedom and ability. We are already outgunned by police and military and I hope that tyrants never use our public servants and military to take our freedoms away. Don't compromise and give away tools that keep our rights protected!

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

The term assault weapon is itself deceiving. If you punch someone your clenched fist could be called an assault weapon. You used it to commit assault. The term is used to confuse people who think the scary black guns are machine guns and magically kill of themselves. The founders had weapons that were able to defeat the British in battle. Our rights are already severely curtailed on that front. And if the police are afraid of being outgunned maybe they should get in another line of work. Law enforcement is scary stuff. I'd rather work with cattle than people any day.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Wasn't that a little term started by Sugerman when he headed the VPC to conjure up an image of machine guns.
http://i.imgur.com/jinK3Uj.jpg
Mine has the 223 bullet clip,but I really gotta get one of those bullet button things(I heard it automatically refills the clip thing.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Something I have not heard mentioned in the press is to limit the 24/7 coverage by the cable news networks. I believe extensive coverag promotes copycats. All these mental cases probably are watching and a few may do a similar thing.. It would have to be voluntary because of 2nd Amendent reasons. If the national news would limit coverage to about 5 minutes with no fly over close up views. There could be more local coverage. This would be the cheapest and most productive measure in my opinion. After it is all over a special could be aired to fully inform the public.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

I think you mean 1st Amendment reasons, freedom of speech.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

I do not proport to be the wise man who knows the perfect answer. But, I do know that we have the right to make our own choices in this country. Personally, I don't want a so-called assault rifle, but I don't think my preference should keep someone from owning one if they so choose. In my gun cabinet is a semi-automatic .22 that holds nearly 20 shells. Should that be considered an assault weapon??? If people are intent on harming other people, they will figure out a way to get a weapon whether they bought it or whether they stole it. A background check won't prevent a person bent on destruction from harming others. Someone like that could do considerable harm to a classroom of kids with a knife. Do we then ban all knives? Common sense should prevail, and leave our constitutional rights alone.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Many of you with different viewpoints have valid arguments, but the fact remains that the mentally-ill man's mother failed to keep him from getting those weapons she had legally obtained. Strengthened background checks for ALL gun sales will not keep criminals from getting guns, but they will not be able go get as many. As for the 100 round magazines, my friends in law enforcement do not want the general public to have those. They fear being out-gunned by the people they have to arrest. I really don't believe our government is coming to our houses to take away our guns, and I don't want to shoot at our patriotic men and women in the armed services.
Also, my father expected me to be accurate and not waste ammunition. A miss meant the game got away and there was no meat in the pot.
Personally, if I can't stop an intruder with 6 shots from the .357, 7 from the 30-30, 5 from the .243, 3 from the shotgun, 17 from Granddad's old .22, 7 from my son's .22 and 8 arrows, I'll just let him have whatever he wants, 'cause he's one tuff sucker.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Well said!...and Amen!!

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

The second amendment is to protect us from a government that thinks it can kill its own citizens without due process. Seems to me that from the latest debates in the news over drones that we are close to living in such a country.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

It is strange to me how people often think things have changed so much that things which have happened in the past can not happen today. In the past disarming the people has led to tyranny and genocide. The founders knew this and was the reason for the 2nd amendment. In my opinion it is as pertinant today as then. It may not happen in our lifetimes but it will happen if the populace is disarmed.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Amendment Text | Annotations
Note first part– REGULATION!!!
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.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

It's really chilling that so many people are willing to give up other peoples rights. It's no big deal if they round up the god fearing hicks. But what are you going to do when the cell door closes behind you and you realize you face life in prison for...eating a cheeseburger? If it would save only one precious child's life...

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Ever since the day of the shooting in Conneticutt, a lot of people have been wanting to ban these semi-auto weapons. To me it wasn't the guns that killed those children, it was the kid that walked in with mental issues. Recently in the news everyday you see it, but it's not the gun killing, it's the person with that mental issue controlling that gun. But no one understands that, most people think guns are not safe.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

I have an idea for stopping people from shooting in the classroom or home if you dont like guns.It's simple an very cheap. Just buy an ABC fire extingusher (about a ten pounder will do) and when the gunperson gets in site give/m a blast I bet he goes down if not give him some more. The stuff gets in his eyes or mouth would surely burn and it would also that the oxygen out of the air, plus you have a lot of shots in a ten pounder and when he goes down hit him over the head with the steal extingusher.
Cheap and ever one needs one anyway, I tell women who are afraid of guns to keep one handy.
Maybe a dumb idea but dont spray my face with one. make sure it's ABC FIRE EXTINGUSHER.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

THIS PAST HUNTING SEASON THERE WERE 6000 EVIL GUNS IH JOHNSTON COUNTY OKL THERE WERE NO MURDERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE HOW MANY HUNTERS WERE OUT IN THE WHOLE USA MY LAND WAS LEASED FOR HUNTING THANKS NICK

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

What purpose does the assault rifle with large magazines serve? Only the police and military need that type of gun. People need to use some common sense. I don't think a person needs 30 rounds of ammunition for hunting.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

An assault rifle is used in the military.Such as select fire as in semi,three round burst,full auto.Civilians don't have assault rifles(well if you have a class three firearms licence)they were banned from ownership in 1934.Civilians have semi-auto.Most states you are limited to a five round magazine.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

I will get rid of my assault weapons when the police give up theirs. Can anybody give me one logical reason as to why the police need them? They are here to protect us from what?

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

The police are under no obligation to protect you.They are here to take the report after the fact.But right, they give up theirs I'll THINK about giving mine up.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Who said the second amendment was about hunting?

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Only the police and military need automobiles. If you own a car, you're a murderer.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

It is NOT about hunting. It is about BEING HUNTED!

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

I'm an avid gun owner, sportsman and hunter. In my book the assault type weapons are not hunting weapons. I have hunted for years with the 3-4 clip guns and mostly retreived game. I will answer all questions need for purchasing another gun.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

You mean you are an avid hunter.What you call "the assault type weapons"also come with 5 round mags.You saying that a 7.62x39 won't drop a deer?Or 5.56 for that matter.Guess what?So will a.22 cal.
For the record the 2nd isn't about sports or hunting, those are fringe benefits granted but not what it is about though that's how the gun grabbers tout it.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

That's great. I hope you're not saying that because it's your style, everyone else should be forced, on pain of incarceration, to embrace it.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Let's start enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Every household in America should be required to have at least one assault weapon for protection against bad guys AND a government intent on stripping us of our constitutional rights.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

The Second Amendment is not the problem. Culture is the problem. When we devalue life in the womb, it is all downhill from there.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

If you allow the government a toe hold, they will never be satisfied until they get their way.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

There many laws pertaining murder and guns which seem to be ineffective or are not enforced. Why harass citizens with more unnecessary regulations.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Get guns out of the hands of nuts and leave the rest of us alone

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

There is no way to deal with mentally ill people in this country any more what good is a check if there is no record of mentally ill people? We have laws that should be enforced. I like our Fla. laws. City people don,t understand our way of life. We have to take care of ourseves not depend on law enforcement to be able to reach us in time if we need it. Semi-automatics are usefull if you have more than one assaliant which I could have been exposed to by way of a prison escape by 6 prisioners.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Amost all the empirical evidence shows that a better armed law abiding citizenry reduces gun violence. It is not even logical to outlaw the so called "assault-style" weapons when they are only used in a minute percentage of all gun violence. I think about our citizens living close to the Mexican border where drug trafficking is prevalent and the dangers they face. I believe it would be irresponsible to limit their protection. The same goes for those of us that live in rural areas where the law enforcement response time is 20 minutes or longer. I have no desire to hurt or shoot anyone and would be devastated if I killed someone. BUT, I would be greatly more devastated if I failed to protect my loved ones.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Your statement is just factually wrong. You may wish it otherwise, but that doesn't make it so. Fact - Statistical evidence shows that higher levels of gun ownership are consistently associated with more gun violence. Period. Come to your own conclusion of what to do about that. But don't pretend the facts are otherwise.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

It is otherwise.Look at it this way(Oh god)if you have a state that has 5 million cars and for whatever reason 4 million are Ford(I heard that)and 1 million are chevys'(heard that too),and over a period of say a week you compile all traffic related fatalities.Any guess which type will of had more accidents?I know lets ban Fords(heard that ahhh)because it's proven chevys' are safer.

In other words all gun violence is clumped together.Police shootings gang shootings even accidental to get the highest number possible that way the VPC and Brady Bunch can go see we told you so.O n a side note:Did you know the VPC and Bradys' classify people up to22-23 years old as children to inflate their stats.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Anyone who chose anyone of the choices other than "Leave the second amendment alone" cannot put together a logical argument as to how that would reduce gun crime., which is the reason for enacting any of those other choices.

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Need to enforce the laws on the books not just make new ones and still let the criminal off easy

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

Your poll doesnt allow two of the above - ban assault weapons and improve mental health screening and support and enact mandatory background checks on all public gun purchases,

Anonymous
on Feb 8, 2013

And therefore what?

Post new comment

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×