Gun Control, FOR or AGAINST? Thoughts?

Gun Control, as it is considered in Legislative circles, is supposed to be preventative.
Our Law Enforcement and Judicial systems are not meant to be preventative but responsive.
Commit the crime then punish the wrong-doer; set a speed limit and ticket those that exceed it.
Preventative legislation, by its nature, must assume that every one is already guilty.
Ticket every car owner everyday because they are going to exceed the speed limit.

Threat of punishment used to be the preventative measure; commit murder and dance at the end of a rope. "Progressives" and "Liberal" pretty much eliminated the threat of punishment by turning prisons into rehab centers. Rehab works for some. Busting rock into sand for 15 years works for everyone.

GUN CONTROL IS DEFINATELY NEEDED FOR CRIMINALS AND PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS. I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION SINCE 1964. THEY DON'T NEED GUN CONTROL BECAUSE THEY ARE GUN CONTROL.

I am for gun control, use 2 hands!

I always liked the joke that proper gun control was a trained hand using the proper Weaver grip. Seriously though, most of the ideas that the legislators come up with are so far off base that they limit access to the law-abiding people that buy guns legally. My Uncle, a 28-year Air Force Vet and former Police officer worked the gun counter at a Bass Pro Shop. The people that came in there to buy a gun were scarier than the criminals in some cases. I think Common sense from the gun seller may be a good thing, in some cases.

Here is my 2 cents worth on this matter.
To me gun control is being able to hit what the h*ll you are aiming at. Plain and simple.
Also, what is so damn hard to understand concerning what the 2A says, "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed upon". That says it all. The founding fathers of this country gave us this very important right in the BILL OF RIGHTS for a reason.
As far as I am concerned, any law that the fed, state, county, or city govt writes making it harder to own a firearm of any type, is an infringement on the 2A GOD given right.

CPT no argument from me. I disagree with gun control because the bad guys would love it. The only thing that keeps a bad guy out of your house it’s not because he’s afraid of you it’s because you might have a loaded weapon in the house.

I am for gun control and still support the 2nd amendment I believe only properly trained personnel should have access to military grade weapons. Background checks and a waiting period are a must.

Hitting your target .... so practice practice practice

When people talk about changing a part or parts of the Constitution I present them with the following and even though I wrote it a couple of years ago but I have found no reason to retract it.

About the Constitution having reflected on the Battle of Concord 240 years later - April 19 2015

This question came up to me recently: Should the (I’m paraphrasing) Constitution, Bill of Rights and the other Amendments be rewritten?

I consider our Constitution to be a living, breathing document, but all our ‘documents of governance’ are intimately interrelated and as such changes should be carefully considered by ALL citizens.

This is how I addressed the Bill of Rights query.

Like any 'system' if one part is removed remainder will be less effective. On the first ten Amendments (the initial Bill of Rights) alone here is how I, a common citizen, see their interaction.

If the 1st Amendment were removed then all those that currently against the 2nd Amendment as it stands would be unable to protest ANY issue without censorship.

The linchpin of the Bill of Rights is the 2nd Amendment - remove it and the US Constitution with the remaining Amendments, becomes unsupportable. To remove the 2nd Amendment or to change the intent is to remove the ability of citizens to enforce the law against tyranny.

Without the 3rd Amendment the government could barrack soldier at any time in your home and use you food, cars and indeed - your family without your consent, in de'facto holding your family as ransom.

The 4th, if it were removed would mean that if anyone disliked you (or your politics) you could be rousted at any time w/o recourse to warrant or intervention of court or legal defense. The accusation would be the charge and sentence in one statement.

Under the 5th I cannot incriminate myself under any circumstances up to and including torture.

With the 6th I have a right to a speedy PUBLIC trial, that includes no secret charges with my accuser (be they public official or private individual) in the public eye where I along with witnesses of both sides will face the consequences of any failure to be less than truthful in their testimony.

In cases where the 7th, where civil law applies, I have a right to trial by my peers – by such we DO NOT mean rich people by rich people, merchants by merchants, poor people by poor people – but by equal citizens under the law. All citizens must be tried alike, not because you can afford better counsel.

My 8th (and yours) keeps me from having to ‘make a loan’ for a simple civil offense or to allow others or the government to sell me into bondage to pay off any fine levied.

The 9th Amendment prevents me form disenfranchising citizens. Even when in the 1920s, when the Oklahoma ‘reclassified’ those with only 1/32nd Indian blood as being ‘Indians’, they could not remove their right to vote in any election. It prevents the denial of equal rights to all citizens.

Lastly the 10th Amendment limits the power of government to those delegated by the Constitution. This prevents a dictatorship by the President, Congress, by a ‘tribunal’, any unelected/elected or non-republic/republic form of government.

In addition, I state as an adjunct to, Thomas Jefferson's "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.", so must the wisdom of each generation be redeemed by critical consideration by the next.

If the founders had not meant the Constitution to change with each generation they would not have embedded the mechanism for change within its core, BUT this was to improve upon the Constitution, not to take away my Rights.

Ralph E Kelley, Citizen

Gun control is a scapegoat for not dealing with a deeper issue. We don't focus on what's pulling the trigger. We have a myriad of psychoses everywhere in the world. All violence is environmentally charged. When someone is bullied in school and is not allowed to defend him/herself but forced to be in that environment, chances are, if they have access to a firearm, they will use it. If they don't have access to firearms, they will improvise to obtain the desired effect. It may not be bullies, it may just be the fact that these shooters feel like they've run out of options. They tell people that are in charge or in the enforcement chain, nothing gets done, and they take matters into their own hands. So the focus shouldn't necessarily be gun control, it should be life options and opportunity management. Cause if you don't get the opportunity to thrive you're going to be taking the opportunity to survive. Sometimes that means negotiating the course the best way you know how. Sometimes people would rather kill the problem rather that negotiate with it.