Patch’s most recent Sunday Poll question — Have Recent Events Made it More Likely for You to Own a Gun? — has an almost 50-50 split among 90 votes and more than 200 comments from Patch users.
The discussion is at times emotional, but numerous users have shared thoughtful opinions about gun ownership, gun violence, self-defense and even mental illness. What follows are some of the best comments. You can still vote in the poll and participate in the discussion.
Keith Best: I refuse to be a victim. I will protect myself and my family WITH A GUN if I have to. If I never have to pull it out all the better, but as I said, I refuse to be a victim.
Steve Ebbie: I have hunted all my life. Own a variety of guns: shotguns, rifles, pistols and black powder. I've never needed more than two shots to take game. I remember the first time Barrack Obama was elected there was a run on ammunition because people were scared. Hope ammo has a long shelf life. I know fear does.
General Batguano: If the government truly wanted to confiscate weapons, they would first announce that they were going to confiscate all weapons, then they would simultaneously send local sheriffs to the houses of gun owners and call over the megaphone, "Come out with all your weapons."
This would trigger well-trained, well-coordinated and disciplined army of gun owners to unleash their master plan (codenamed "Fantasy"). They'd communicate over the phone systems and the internet that the government forgot to shut down or monitor. They'd shoot their way through military roadblocks and barricades and link-up to seize the police stations, military bases, and communications networks; effectively rendering the government incapable of counter attack.
When it was all over, crowds of meek non-gun owners would pour into the streets and raise the victors on high.
(Full disclosure: I AM a gun owner.)
Randy1949: We're all law-abiding until we commit our first crime. We're almost all of us sane until we fall prey to a mental illness. Sane, law-abiding citizens can purchase guns and then become neither sane nor law-abiding.
So how do we deal with this fact in an imperfect world?
Adam: Gun bans simply don't work. … Illinois has the most aggressive gun restrictions in the country and Chicago has had over 500 homicides in the last year. And Rahm Emanuel, who (criticized) the NRA proposal to put an armed officer in every school has been taking that exact same approach for some time now. When the Columbine shooting occurred there was an active ban on assault rifles signed into law by Bill Clinton. One of the (weapons) specifically mention in the legislation, the TEC-9, was used at Columbine. Last time I checked, heroin and cocaine were illegal but I think its fair to say that it hasn't stopped people from using them. … In short, yes, I will be buying a gun.
Tom Bosworth: Choosing not to own a gun is fine, but the idea that no one should be allowed to is not. Neither is prohibiting others from choosing high capacity magazines. The Korean shopkeepers who stood on their roofs with "assault rifles" to protect their stores during the Rodney King riots were the only thing which prevented their destruction, and quite likely their own deaths.
High capacity magazines are essential for resisting multiple assailant attacks. You may believe that you will never be in such a situation. That's fine: your life, your choice. Other people live in different situations, and they as reasonable and responsible people have the right to make their owned visions as well. A shopkeeper in Oakland lives in a very different world from those in Fox Point or Bayside, WI. Bans don't work: they just disarm victims without stopping murderers and rapists.
Mike Itzenhuiser: Have recent events made it more likely for me to own a gun? Absolutely not. I've owned guns my entire life. Recent events have only made it necessary to get my concealed carry permit. Now I don't leave my house without packing heat.
Charlie DeSando: Things change over time. Rights can be limited, such as the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is not absolute, and neither is the 2nd amendment. There can be limits placed, as put forth in the Constitution.
St8shooter: I can't think of one mass shooting involving an assault rifle because assault rifles are "fully automatic" while the civilian model of AR15's/M4's are only semi auto which is the same as most handguns and many other shotguns and rifles. It's a civilian model because it is appropriate for civilians. It shoots almost the same bullet a squirrel hunting rifle does just in a gun that looks differently. The only difference is the larger magazine and if there was any correlation to the magazine size and killings then I would be ok with banning them but there isn't.
Bottom Line: I do wish we would focus on criminality and the mentally unstable, instead of discussing limitations for the law abiding. I haven't read many posts, blogs, or articles, that address the real issues.
People that choose not to own guns, and people that want complete arsenals are generally not causing these events that occur. Mass shootings, and day to day shootings are happening because we have people in our free society that should be institutionalized, or jailed.
Exrepublican: The term "assault weapon" is very misunderstood by people who are not familiar with guns. An AR-15 certainly looks menacing. In reality, it is a semi-auto fire rifle with a fairly small caliber bullet. I for one think that the government should restrict it to a maximum of 10. Of course it won't deter someone hell (bent) on murder, but it makes it just a little harder to cause mass casualties. Nobody who hunts uses a 30 round magazine. To truly make a difference, I believe you have to take some discretion out of judges hands. There has to be harsh mandatory minimum sentences for people who commit crimes with guns. I'm not talking about just murder. I mean ALL crimes committed while armed with a firearm.
The Anti-Alinsky: The opponents of Liberal gun control are not a "do nothing" group, we just realize that the restrictions that Liberals really want (take all guns away from everyone) does not and has never worked. What we want is real change that will be effective, and it does not have to come at the expense of trashing the second amendment.
-Benjamin Franklin Just a thought by a founding Father.
"When Congress won't act, I will," Obama brazenly declared last year -- and not for the first time.In fact, he frequently uses the threat to act unilaterally. He has taken DUHbya's unitary executive style of governing to an obscene level. He informed Congress, in complete disregard of the Constitution, that he did not need its consent to attack Libya. He DOES know proper procedure, but choses to ignore it. In most countries, that would make him a tin-pot dictator. So what happens if Obama unilaterally decrees our guns will be confiscated? This is where the true meaning of the Second Amendment comes in to play. As King Leonidas told Xerxes the Great of Persia when Xerxes demanded the Spartans surrender their arms at the Battle of Thermopolae, "Molon Labe" -- which roughly translates to "come and take them". There are an estimated 90 million gun owners in America, many of whom will say Molon Labe, buster! A nation that will submit to gun confiscation will not long remain a free nation.
Reduce the type of arm, magazine..etc will not make you feel better about a shot gun or rifle round or six shooter killing your kid. The mentally ill/sick frak needs to be stopped and an armed citizen in the vicinity is the best.
The reality is that there is no limit on the First amendment. There are no restrictions at all. The only restrictions that are seen in any constitutionally protected right are when you use those liberties to abuse the freedoms of others. Libel is illegal. Because you are lying about someone else and harming their reputation, maliciously. And the dumbest example of all… Yelling fire in a theater… Is revealing just how pathetic and weak the gun-hater group's argument is. No one yells fire in a crowded theater. By choice. Self-regulation is a beautiful thing, and the expectation of it raises the level of the publics behavior. The basis of every progressive infection on constitutional rights is always based on the same thing… refusing to accept the reality that stupid people will do stupid things with the freedoms they have to infringe upon the freedoms of other individuals. Bans. Don't. Work. Ask Capone.
That is the obnoxiously wrong and evil thinking that has brought us to this point. You are an enemy of liberty with what you just said. Self-regulation happens every day. Seldom? How can you sleep at night with such lies in your mind blows me away. It is quite the opposite. I am shocked a full grown adult with an education can say such a reckless, liberty-hating thing.
Of course they don't. You can't legislate morality; nor sanity. When it comes to killers, you remove them from the gene pool, not ban their weapons of choice -- which are useful tools when used properly.
Anything used for evil causes death and destruction. But the laws, however reasonable ad they may seem, never work. Ever. EVER
~Chief Justice Joseph Story
Which by the way was just sold to Al Jezzera. Have you got that channel in your favorites yet?
Al Gore is a tool.
So, when they talk about confiscation, they are advocating the "most probable" deaths of thousands of people every year.
I just about jumped out of my skin with that comment. But the gentlemen she was talking with said, well that is entirely not true. You have to pull the trigger every time. you want to fire a round. Proves my point exactly. All she knows is our liberal biased media talking points. She was and is completely clueless on how a semi auto weapon functions. Amazing!!! Dont tread on me or my 2nd amendment rights period!!! Those are God Given rights protecting me and my family from a tyrannical government, enemies foriegn or domestic. They are not negoitable AT ALL!!!!
http://www.guns.com/2013/01/03/marine-writes-letter-to-sen-dianne-feinstein-i-will-not-be-disarmed-video/