6 Comments

  • CJ

    July 25, 2012

    People clamor “People kill people”, when these massacres occur, but how do you stop the disturbed from getting their hands on these types of assault weapons without stricter controls? Ice-T said if someone wants to kill you they will find a way, but it would have been a lot harder for Holmes to kill 12 people and injure 51 others (some critically) with only a revolver or a rifle.

    Reply
  • Denver Roach

    July 25, 2012

    The 2001 WTC attacks used Airplanes to kill people. Lets outlaw planes too.

    Reply
  • Dennis

    July 25, 2012

    To date, there are over 12000 gun laws in place. Adding more gun laws is NOT the answer. Enforcing the ones that exist IS the answer. If we restrict the law abiding citizen from owning a firearm then only the Non-Law Abiding citizens will have them. Australia took away all forms of firearms. Their crime rate immediately went through the roof because only the criminals had firearms. I have no issue with having to wait for a clearance to purchase a pistol. I have nothing to hide. The SYSTEM for checking is flawed. Our police officers should be armed just as the police are in Italy, Germany, France and Spain. Fully automatic weapons. The individual store owner should have more power to decide who their establishment sales guns to based on intelectual decision making and their GUT FEELING. The government has their hands full trying to regulate gun control. Drop that responsibility down to the lowest level and get some help. I support and defend everyones right to keep and bear arms as long as they PASS THE TEST. I also support and defend everyones right to NOT own a firearm. Freedom of choice. There IS peace through superior fire power. I truly believe that if a criminal even suspects that someone is armed that they will be less likely to assualt them. The police are there AFTER THE FACT. I have carried concealed for a number of years and have yet to have to pull my firearm, but I have it JUST IN CASE. Go with God.

    Reply
  • Kurt

    July 25, 2012

    According to the government’s website, there were 31K firearm related deaths in 2009 (the last year they had data published for). Keep in mind, that number includes suicides as well, so some of those people would have found another way to end it if guns weren’t available. So unless there was a 3X increase in those deaths, I think Mr. Alexander pulled a number out of his backside.

    Reply
    • Robert Pontius

      July 25, 2012

      Kurt you are right, of the 31k also included suicide by cop, officer no choice shootings and homeowner shootings due to armed intruders to protect their selves and familys. If our present administration approves the UN agenda 21 we will need whatever needed to protect ourselves from the un soldiers (not our american soldiers or police) from invading homes to confiscate weapons and killing people who resist. I spent a lot of years as a police officer and am a vet and never feared the honest citizen.

      Reply
  • Claybourne

    July 25, 2012

    The question is about “should we have FEDERAL laws that supersede the state laws”. One state could outlaw certain types of guns but citizens can just cross state lines to get those same “outlawed” guns and bring them back. Proponents are simply saying that the GOVERNMENT should ban certain types of “arms” so non military people don’t posses them.Such as automatic machines guns, grenades, rocket launchers,sawed off shot guns,bazookas, tanks and flame-throwers.Does ANY sane person think a non-military person need ANY of these things???

    Reply

Leave a Reply