Mike Lester for June 20, 2015

The only place to be safe from guns is in a people free zone.

Why is Congress a gun free zone?

They should all carry whatever weapons they want.

There would be fewer filibusters.

When I was in my church I felt safe. The pastor had a 9mm automatic and knew how to use it.

Our church has a security team. They all carry.

What is really needed is a reasonable compromise. Anybody can walk into a gun show and buy guns without a check of any kind. A reasonable process like we do for drivers licenses that would insure training on the law, safety and the ability to know how to use a gun would go a long way. Also a decent check on mental status. There is no need to ban guns but we could do a lot to reduce the ridiculous number of guns in the country. Most are just laying around somebody’s house and half of them are loaded. I would not ban them but I would make it so it takes some effort to get and stay licensed. That alone would make a big impact. Even with that you would still have nut jobs shooting people from time to time, just not as often.

Gun Control and Gun Free Zones are two different things.Different subject: So, Micheal Lester are you making fun of churches, businesses and government buildings that choose to be gun free zones? As a Christian, and a believer in the Freedom of Religion, you should stand for churches to make the choices for themselves. If gun owners want respect for the their right to own a gun, they should respect the rights of people to have no guns on their property. If as Jeff Cartwright says is true that 99.99999% of gun owners have never caused one bit of danger than people who choose to have gun free zones should have little to fear.Yes maybe having a gun at the time a shooter starts shooting may save lives and probably will in some situations but it is not a guarantee in all. If it were true no police officers would ever die and they are better trained than most gun owners. So do not delude yourself in think that having a gun will stop all gun violence. You have the right to think that, but if you want respect, respect the rights of others not to have a gun.

A few points:If you purchase a firearm at a gun show from a dealer you MUST follow ALL background check laws. If you purchase a firearm from an individual, there is no such requirement … for several reasons. Not the least of which, is for individual sales, such a requirement is WHOLLY unenforceable … UNLESS the government knows where EVERY firearm in the country is located and who owns it … they don’t and they have no way of finding out. Another reason is access to the NICS background check system; the system is already overloaded frequently, doubling its traffic would REDUCE the numbers of real checks accomplished..Safe training has done nothing to prevent the slaughter of individuals on our highways, it will do little to prevent injuries from firearms. Negligence is not eliminated by training. That said only an extremely small portion of firearm related injuries are related to negligence, so even if we were able to eliminate ALL negligence it wouldn’t reduce the number noticeably..Someone who appears to be completely sane today can be completely insane tomorrow. NO check on mental status will prevent issues tomorrow..Any licensing requirement that would prevent my ownership of a firearm is a violation of the Second amendment. The ONLY way to get around that is to repeal that amendment. There is NO evidence available ANYWHERE that proves licensing would prevent ONE of the last several dozen shootings. In EVERY case, the firearms were purchased through the federal background check system, and in every case that system utterly failed to prevent even ONE of those shootings. .According to the FBI, the vast majority of shootings that occur in the US, somewhere above 70% are gang/drug related. Drug dealers and gangs won’t pay any attention to a law that requires registration or licensing, so such a requirement will do NOTHING to mitigate firearm related issues..Living in a truly free country means you are ‘free’ to walk among people who are free to behave poorly, NO law will prevent people from behaving poorly, the very best ANY law can do is punish someone when they do, NOTHING more..Any ‘compromise’ with freedom is not free..Mr Ahab, there are already more guns than people in the US, exactly how would you go about guaranteeing “no guns”? Considering that this country has been a “no drugs” country for nearly half a century and we have UTTERLY failed there, it has been a “no murder” country for over two centuries and we failed there as well what makes you think it could EVER be a “no guns” country?? In fact I challenge you to name ONE, just ONE, prohibition that has worked in this country, ALL have them have failed. The difference with THIS option is it leaves the criminals armed and the citizens helpless. A firearm may not make me safe, but it DOES insure that the perp is NOT SAFE either.

Holocaust museum, bank robberies, and check out your TV or movies, the first ones the bad guys with guns take out, are the “good guys” with guns! It ain’t just in the movies.

The store clerk, or guard, who outdraws a “bad guy” with an already out gun, is a fiction of the movies, and NRA propaganda. One of the first things you learn in law enforcement, and the ethics of use of firearms, is that having that badge, and/or a GUN, makes you the primary threat, and thus, target. It IS that factor in many cases that does explain the problem of cops reacting too quickly and shooting unarmed folks they THOUGHT were a threat, or rapidly assuming a toy gun that looks EXACTLY LIKE a real gun IS real.

When you throw a gun in the mix, danger raises exponentially, no matter who is holding.

Exactly what the NRA wants – no, buy two! They are dedicated to making the gun industry profitable, no matter what they say about “rights”. The part of “shall not be infringed” that I don’t understand is why gun nuts ignore the “well-regulated militia” phrase.

Yes and Canada is right across a very long, mainly unprotected border. So how come Canada does better at managing shootings?

To the people who say that everyone should own a gun (NRA); look how well certain trained officers make quick judgements.

How do you figure? Did the pastor shoot people? Why would he do that?The people in that church were safer because their pastor was armed.

No I mentioned no penalties you are mixing me up with someone else.Gun shooting has come down at the same time as gun ownership./>that is the clear and precise language of the second amendment. You did not read this article and you do not understand that there can be restrictions. The First Amendment has even stronger language and yet you can not yell “fire” in a crowded theater. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/01/constitution-check-are-there-no-limits-on-second-amendment-rights/My posted reply to you had nothing to do with penalties or background checks.Gun advocates like to point to Switzerland as a utopia of high gun ownership and gun crime, but they fail to acknowledge Switzerland’s restrictions:/>“In Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms,56 incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and ‘expansive projectiles for handguns’57” “Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection” ”In Switzerland, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register””In Switzerland, the private sale and transfer of firearms is prohibited” “Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Switzerland stipulates that a gun licence should be denied or revoked.” http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

There is NO way to enforce compliance with background checks for sales between individuals. The fourth amendment prohibits blanket checks without probable cause.Somehow the 4th Amendment doesn’t prevent government from requiring registration of cars & recording private transfers of car ownership from one person to another, even as a gift between family members.We have 250 million cars in the US. We do actually have more guns. Estimates are around 300 million. But, if we can track 250 million cars, I see no logistical reason why we can’t track guns. Will people steal guns & file off the serial numbers? Sure. Will people be a lot more careful about keeping their guns secure & less likely to sell to a straw buyer who sells to criminals? That seems to be the case in every country, like Switzerland and Canada, that regulate gun ownership more closelyThe real issue is people who see any government regulation of gun ownership as a nefarious plot to deprive them of their freedom. The know this because right wing “entertainers” tell them that’s what is happening.<brBasically, all you have to back up your position is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. A future Supreme Court may take a different position that the current one. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment will be repealed & replaced. Eventually Americans will wise up & realize that regulating guns is the same as regulating powerful explosives. They have legitimate uses, but the costs of allowing pretty much any one to acquire such weapons with little restriction is too high.

You are correct Mr. PainterArt that was Mr. Joe speaking of training, I apologize for the mis-attribution.Your chart is based on percentages in the home, not numbers, the numbers of guns on the street has increased dramatically since 1984. Violent crime has decreased over the same time period. Even though the media would have us believe otherwise, this is a MUCH safer nation than it was 30 years ago. Fear of walking in the neighborhood is related to the unreasonable assumption that it is no longer safe to do so, when statistics show it is now much safer than it was 30 years ago..The federal government is prohibited from making a law against yelling fire in a theater and has made NO such law. In fact a quick review of a half a dozen states indicates they have not made such laws either. In fact you can be charged with negligence (and civilly liable) if the theater IS on fire and you fail to notify the occupants. .The language of the Second Amendment is CONSIDERABLY stronger than that of the First Amendment. The First amendment restricts specifically and ONLY Congress, NO other entity is restricted by the first; “CONGRESS shall make no law….”. The second makes NO such specification and is a GLOBAL restriction on ANY government agent or agency including state and local government. The right is inviolable by ANY government agent or agency..I read the article, it is inaccurate. ANY restriction is an infringement. That article is inaccurate in SEVERAL instances. It actually PROMOTES the violation of the Frist Amendment by approving such lunacy as outlawing “hate speech” when that is PRECISELY the kind of speech the amendment is meant to protect. The author of the blog inaccurately states that a person has no rights until the court declares those rights exist. That is not ONLY inaccurate but dangerous. Were I you, I would avoid such inaccurate blogs, they lead to gross misunderstandings..You CANNOT compare Switzerland, with a population of 8 million homogeneous citizens, with a nation of 322 Million extremely diverse citizens … well you can just not accurately.

Mr Uncle Joe,The ONLY time you need to have your ownership of a vehicle infringed by government tis if you wish to operate that vehicle on public roads. If the vehicle is not operated on public roads they have jurisdiction on the vehicle. I own three vehicles of which the government has no knowledge or interest, they are never operated on public thoroughfares. Those vehicles are the size of cars and a missing license plate is noticeable, that of course has not stopped the use of improperly licensed vehicles on the streets. That said, in order to search that vehicle a warrant IS required by the Fourth Amendment..A firearm is small enough to be placed in my home or pocket or under my seat or any of a hundred places where law enforcement MUST obtain a warrant to discover. There are already nearly 400 million firearms on the street in this country for which the government has NO knowledge of ownership and NO feasible means of determining that ownership. Without knowing PRECISELY who owns what firearm there is NO method available to enforce a background check law..You know I might agree that it is over-paranoid to believe that government would use firearm registration to violate the rights of individuals … unfortunately they have already done so in California and in Colorado, the government used registration records to ILLEGALY confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens. By the way regulating firearms is NOT the same as regulating explosives, one is protected by the Constitution, the other is not..But is an important distinction for all of us. ANY infringement on YOUR activity is a violation of YOUR freedom. In some cases we make allowances for the curtailment of our own freedoms in exchange for something else. We abide by traffic laws in order to use public roads. I have NO incentive to trade off my right to own a firearm, I receive NO benefit in exchange for allowing that right to be curtailed. Odds are I will maintain my right to own a firearm even if the government decides they wish to violate that right..The second amendment requires NO interpretation by anyone who can read and understand 8th grade English. The sentence diagram clearly shows the supportive first clause has no functional bearing on the subject declarative clause altering its clear declaration in no way; “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” … and that is a ‘period’ at the end of that sentence. The ONLY way ANY government can interfere with the right of an individual to own and carry a firearm is by repealing that amendment. ANY other attempt is a violation of that amendment.

Mr Barnard, if you have evidence of such corruption you are obligated to provide that evidence to law enforcement. Otherwise you are assuming a crime where one may not exist. Simply donating money to a campaign that support my positions is NOT a crime. PACs are simply groups of individuals exercising their constitutional rights to assemble and petition government. You have bought into the dodge that it is the money, it isn’t, it IS the corrupt politician. Vote the b4st4rd out.