1 Raise the age of all firearm ownership to 21 and lower the age for  
alcohol 18. Or at the very least get it the right way round !!

 

2 Sneaky Fred Thompson. He's making me seriously doubt my allegiance to Rudy.

3 Right said Fred.

4 I'd say alcholhol is more dangerous than a gun. I had a hunting rifle which I paid for with my own earnings, next to my bed from age 12. I was also possibly the most responsable person in the house. All the drunk people over 21 were doing the violent stuff, so I think I can make that claim.               
                                USA, all the way!

5 Fred should declare!                      USA, all the way!

6 Having guns. Why the hell was this foreigner allowed to buy a gun? Anyone ask that question?

7 Because he was a legal resident. That should be a fair reason. Years ago, all that used to matter was if you had the cash, so the fact that we even worry about legal residency should be considered a step forward.                                 USA, all the way!

8
I'd say alcholhol is more dangerous than a gun.

But there is a reason our country has one bureau for alcohol, tobacco and firearms...they go together.

9 You always expect the gun control wackos to call for even more stupid gun control laws after things like this when it was gun control whiched cuased this and instead of blaming the NRA lets lay the blame right on the shoulders of the BRADY CAMPAGN

10 Ha, ah! Michael: He was an alien resident. Our right to bear arms is a protection for American Citizens. As an alien he was not an American citizen. Therefore he hasn't the protections our Constitution guarantees. As I read it. He had no right to bear arms as he was not a citizen. He should not have been able to purchase and own arms as a non-American.

11 "shoe bomber Richard Reid," There are now "shoe free zones" in Central America, which seems to have eradicated shoe bombing in Cental America, take that NRA.

g

12 "he was not a citizen"  but being in the country legally he would have been able to enjot the protection of our laws. If he was here illegally, then a case could be made that his origion should have prevented a purchase. I stand by the 'cash and carry' statement about how guns used to be purchased, and the people had more freedom to acquire arms under that more 'liberal' market.  I don't see any strngth in your assumption that he should NOT have been able to legally purchase arms, based on his background check. His mental illness was protected information, and that is where the background check failed.                                         
                        USA, all the way!

13 Then as you understand he should not be denied the privilege to vote. 

14 I believe the Constitution says the right of citizens to own and bear arms. Doesn't say a thing about aliens from Korea having the same protection.

15 Wooga: Little info here please.

16 If you keep chunking the bait sooner or later you'll get a bite.

17 <sup>I for one am just a bit worried that he had guns so easily.  It seems that once he was arreste and in the systhem there should be some followup.  If his prior behaviour is not an indicaations that at least maybe a flag should go up to law enforcement that a effing nut just bought a gun. 

Not that we need any new laws just to follow the ones we have a bit better. .  I won't speak to Virgia's  lawa.  I'm in I'll you can buy a gun only following a full body cavity search condected personally by gov rod.

The shame is is just one of the girls had pressed the felony stalking charges, maybe he would not have passed the check and gotten these weapons to start with.  Documented emotional instability should be considered, I mean we take gun cards for some of the silliest offenses. Like forgetting to unload your shotgun, but the nut can have one.  Geees.</sup>

18 Glad to know I'm not the only drunk on this blog.

19 Michael Weaver +1 on the "protected" status of PMH files, it seems that few understand that his right to be a danger to himself and others somehow became more important than the right of society to protect itself from him. 
 
As for Fred Thompson, he continues to say things that a lot of folks have been thinking for a long time.  Straight, common sense answers to our nations problems sit well with me and apparently a lot of other people as well.  I haven't felt excited about a candidate since Reagan but I find myself wanting to work to get Fred Thompson elected.  Common sense has been badly lacking from Washington DC for way too long.
 
The concept that Americans can be trusted to not only protect themselves but to stand between evil and their fellow man lies at the heart of the second amendment to our Constitution and it's sad that it takes a tragedy like that at VA Tech to remind us of that.  How sad also that we aren't hearing the same from other Presidential candidates.
 
 

20 But is the average American brave enough to elect him. The lefturds will automactically say if we elect Fred Thompson another war is sure to follow/

21 greyrooster
 

The left turds will ensure that another war is inevitable, they will follow the failed path of Chamberlain until another war is thrust upon them just as WWII was thrust upon Europe.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834

22

Not going to arque that.

23 Looks like Micheal Weaver quit on the right to own arms issue. The second ammendment clearly and repeatedly refers to THE PEOPLE. Common sense means that the people are the citizens of the United States. Non-citizens have no right to purchase, own or bear arms in this nation. Once again academic meatheads have failed to understand the intent of the writers and ratifiers of the 2nd Ammendant. Once again we can look to academia as the source of misinterperting what our forefathers wrote. Academia needs an enemia.

24 Actually I think legal residents are entitled to serious consideration under the law. Unless they are doing something wrong, they should probably be secure in thier effects, and property, and such. They should probably be allowed to hunt, or fish, or use the sidewalk, or anything else that comes under the broad catagory of 'enjoying' legal residency.  The franchize for voting extends to citizens, and goes beyond issues of self defense, or property. Guns minus intent are merely property, and in that sense are no different than automobiles or color TV's.  If someone is in the States legally, they should be able to spend thier money.           USA, all the way!

25 As far as legal residency goes, we could benefit from more serious determination of that standard as well.  To many get it, to easily.  Look at CAIR's membership.  There is room for improvement.  Still ... a gun is a useful tool, and a means to pursue legal recreation. If as greyrooster suggests, we disallow them to legal residents, we are leaving a foor in the door for gun control advocates to try and add to the 'disallowed' list. My instinct is to say that self defense as a right, trancends any governments right of recognition. The government doesn't give you a right to self defense, it only choses whether to recognize the right, and how much.
                        USA, all the way!

26 As far as recognizing the right to self defense, that right trumps government's right to recognize it, the real issue rests with an individuals willingness to defy a government restriction on that basic right to self defense. A big mean government that tries to restrict your right poses a threat that must be weighed against the justified defiance of thier restrictions. Morally, you ARE REQURED to resist gun control as a restriction on your right to personal self defense. And for Greyrooster, this right is universal, whether the US government extends recognition to all legal residents, or just the citizens. Even Koreans have the basic right. Cause it's basic! It's universal!                                     USA, all the way!

27 Now as to voting, which Greyrooster tried to compare to self defense/gun issues.     Voting is for people who are invested as citizens, in the process of government by the people, and who have given allegience to the political entity within which the voting occurs, and which the voting is intended to govern.  Voting is recognition of the individual voice as it applies to collective decision making.  The voting body can pursue issues like defense of the collective citizenry, and even decide to oppress basic rights like personal self defense. The right doesn't go away, but it can be oppressed.  OK anyway, voting is a memebrship issue. you need to be a citizen, and you decide as a collective. Gun rights are personal, and as a matter of self defence, are more pure than a governments efforts to oppress them. I hope the distinction comes through.                 
             USA, all the way!

28 "repeatedly refers to THE PEOPLE"  The US Constitution was used to hold out certain rights for special protection, and especially for 'The People'.  Some rights are unenumerated, and as our Founding Fathers said, all men are created equal, with inalienable rights. Giving special protection to 'The People' is not meant to infringe on any mans 'inalienable rights'. This would be morally wrong. When 'rights' come into conflict, value judgements have to be made. The US government is suppossed to put the rights of 'The People' first, but this doesn't require the defacto oppression of the rights of non-citizens. If a conflict occurs, the rights of citizens should have more weight. Thats he main difference.                
                             USA, all the way!

29 I will always uphold the Second Amendment, and I embrace the concept that all people have inalienable rights. The whole world should be transformed to recognize those rights. The default should be to respect an individuals equal right to exist, and freedom of choice, and conscience. Only where a conflict MUST BE resolved, should sacrifices be made, and those sacrifices should be as minimal as possible. My counter to Communism ... "Each according to his ability, and conscience!"  Just that! Men with a conscience CAN CHOOSE to be generous with the fruits of thier labors, and exercise moral judgement as to how those fruits are to be distributed.           I guess I'm ranting.          I hope my rants are at least clear enough to be understood                                  
                                                                       USA, all the way!

30 Good way to leave the main subject. The 2nd ammendent clearly refers to the rights of the people. The people being the citizens of the United States of America. It in no way extents the rights to own and bear arms to foreigners. All else is academic poppycock. Libral interpretation and lack of common sense has allowed the 2nd ammendant to be manipulated until it is a danger not a protection for Americans. Nothing permits 10,000 green carders from coming into this nation and buying 10,000 weapons all in a short period of time. Would you feel comfortable with 10,000 mexican coming into San Diego and being able to purchase 10,000 weapons.     What does a foreign student need a semi automatic weapon for? Swatting flies in the dorm? COMMON SENSE needs application here. CHO had no right to purcase and own weapons in our country. He was not a citizen and some ambulance chaser needs to challenge that right. Could be big bucks in a class action suit.

31 Declare all gun control unconstitutional i mean a judge just recently declared WASHINGTON D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional and of course the eletist liberal mayor is objecting WELL IF THIS WUSSIETARD CANT READ WHAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT SAID THEN WHY DONT HE JUST STEP DOWN AND GET A NEW JOB CLEANING UP TRASH

32

Greyrooster, our Founding Fathers recognized the existence of universal rights, and took measures to enshrine protections for those rights into the laws of the republic. For the most part, the rights remain universal, even if not enshrined in law. 

A mans right to take up whatever arms he can in defense of himself, his family, and thier welfare, is a universal, and inalienble right.  Morally, a man has the natural right to seek the means of defense REGARDLESS OF GOVERNMENT OR LAWS OF MAN! 

Saying rights have no moral application to those who are not citizens is like saying they have no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. We would become that which we hate. Using your exmple of rights applying only to 'The People', I could pick out people who were merely 'legal residents' and deprive them of life, liberty, etc, and it would be OK.  Why ... we could re-instate slavery!

Unless someone is doing something wrong, (WRONG) then leave them alone!  Really! 

A hundred years ago, Mexicans (and others) could come buy guns in the USA if they had the cash, and nobody gave a damn if they were citizens.  Nobody probably bothered to check and see if they were even legal residents. SO BIG WHOOP!  It was better that way, than it is now with all the restrictions that lawful residents already face.  

Many things about our culture were MORE FREE in those days. There were no real gun control laws, and a man could choose as he liked.  Personal self defense was presumed, not punished. I'm not changing my view about inalienable rights, or how effective self defense is one of them.  Criminals, invaders, and seditionists need to be stopped, but otherwise, leave people alone. 

USA, all the way!