Two views on guns

At least they did get a pro gun person to have his say. He presented a very good article on the right to keep and bear arms. Their gun hater would fit right in with the rest of the liberal idiot pisswits that make up the register editorial board. A board that I have invited several time to go to the range with me for a class and some shooting. A invitation that has been ignored.


— KARL SCHILLING

The most important thing a government can do regarding victims of crime is to see to it that there are fewer of them.

Yes, and they could start by locking up the violent offenders. They need to be put in a cage and kept there until they can either play nice with others or they die.

Reasonable gun control legislation would help.

No it won't. They are called criminals for a reason. There is no gun control law on the books that has had any effect on a criminal.

Some victims of violent crimes take comfort in having a gun, and I would not presume to take that from them.

Yes I do and yes you would. The only people gun control affects are the law abiding victims. You would disarm the very people that should be able to protect themselves.

No one needs large-capacity ammunition magazines for self-defense or hunting. We should limit the size of magazines.

Why? Magazine capacity has nothing to do with anything. I can change magazines in my rifles in seconds. Banning something because it scares you is just liberal idiocy.

Similarly, one should not be able to purchase large quantities of ammunition. What is a large amount is debatable, but 6,000 rounds would certainly be too much.

What you consider a large quantity is simple conjecture. The young lady that just won a gold medal at the Olympics shoots 500 to 1,000 rounds a day in practice. Your idea of large quantity and mine are two different numbers. When I go to the range, I usually shoot a few hundred rounds. Depending on what I'm shooting, it could be over a 1,000 rounds. Keep your hands off my stockpile.

The ban on assault weapons should not have been allowed to lapse. It was a good idea, it helped, and it kept no one from hunting or protecting themselves.

Assault weapons is a term that the gun haters have perverted to suit their own needs. True assault rifles are regulated under the NFA34. To own one you must submit to a very intense FBI background check and pay a $200 tax. That doesn't include the cost of the rifle it's self, that can run into the thousands.
The failed AWB stopped no crimes. The FBI statistics show that all long guns are used in less than 2% of all crimes.

Those who have guns, especially handguns, should be required to have some training in how to use them effectively and responsibly.

Most permit holder have more and better training than most police officers. Unless a police officer is also a gun person, they practice one day and qualify the next because they have to.

When The Des Moines Register published a previous article on gun control, one of the online commentators stated that he wanted to carry a handgun because a relative was mugged on a bus. I would submit that everyone would be better off letting the mugger have the wallet rather than opening fire in a bus with passengers on it.

And what if want they want is your life?

Some want to have military-style weapons in case the government turns on us. I have seen this expressed in online answers to gun control articles. I would answer that if the United States becomes a dictatorship and the military turns on us, having an AR-15 in the closet won’t change that.

I like my "military" style rifles because they are fun to shoot. The United States will never be a dictatorship because the politicians are realists. They know that of the 80,000,000 gun owners, there would be enough saying hell no to keep that from happening.

— MATT WINDSCHITL

We have laws that require a person to submit to and pass a federal background check before purchasing a firearm. This law also prohibits criminals and certain disqualified people from possessing a firearm

.

And it works rather well. I have had exactly one person denied on a background check.They didn't get the gun they wanted.

We have laws that restrict where a firearm can be carried and also how a firearm must be transported. Private businesses have the right to restrict people from carrying a firearm into their business, even if a patron of that business has a permit to carry a weapon.

And we gun owners and permit holders have the right not to patronize such businesses.

If an individual wants to carry a weapon for self-defense, they must first submit to training and a federal background check at their local sheriff’s office.

The 2nd Amendment is the only one we have to beg permission to exercise. Maybe we need to make people get a permit and training before they can spout their opinion. That would be fair, wouldn't it?

Firearms are inanimate objects and are intended to be used for self-defense, sport and, most importantly, defending our freedoms and liberties. Instead of calling for more gun control and new regulations, let’s talk, instead, about crime control and focus our attention on getting criminals off our streets and into prison where they can be adequately punished for their crimes.

Except they would rather vilify lawful gun owners and slap the violent offenders on the wrist. We need to turn oour prisons back into prisons instead of a spa/resort for criminals. They should be in their cages 23 hours a day.No cable, no TV and no weight rooms and pool tables.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said something along the line of “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Many Americans, including myself, consider our right to keep and bear arms an essential liberty and will not trade it for political expediency or the mere perception of safety.

Gun control laws are just that, a illusion of safety.