I started anchoring when I was 25.

For some reason I thought you were older since I remember watching the evening news with my dad way back in the 70′s when I was still an adolescent.

A word of caution if you are going to be serious about this newfangled “blogging”.

Controversial opinions regarding guns is an internet flame war in the making. It’s almost a surefired bet as a Philadelphia sports team choking.

The only people who answer this call to disarm themselves is the law abiding citizens, not the criminals who will simply pickup the surplus firearms (like they did in Ontario Quebec, and here in Alberta.) It’s hard to defend yourself with bolt action rifles, or any kind of single action weapons. And from what I understand the 2nd amendment was put in place to allow citizens to defend themselves when the government oppresses and controls us; for example, when you overthrew the legitimate British government in the war of independence. Take note of history and reconsider. I respect your opinion but still think it’s wrong.

By the way, calling everyone who labels others fascist you’re calling the left fascist too. Hitler and Mussolini instated gun control, they perpetuated atrocities and you’re saying that WE the responsible gun owners are fascists because we want to prevent what the government and criminals can do. We are trying to stop fascism at the root by protecting ourselves when the government and police are either to inept, or when they are the aggressors. I know I’m from a different country and we all have our unique circumstances but that’s my two cents worth.

What I DO have a problem with is that people want to legislate MORE controls against law-abiding gun owners. There are MILLIONS of so-called ‘assault rifles’ in the hands of law-abiding Americans. The number of people killed by criminals using this type of weapon every year is tiny – LESS than the number of children killed in bicycle accidents. Yet since they sound fearsome, more laws should be enacted to outlaw them.

These laws do NOTHING to stop the bad guys from doing bad things. But they inhibit my rights as labeled under the constitution. If you want to change things – push for an ammendment to the Constitution. But stop enacting silly laws that just make people feel good but do NOTHING.

Love your work on the Beatles, but please stay away from the gun issue. It isn’t your forte.

2 points:

1. By taking semi-auto’s out of the hands of law abiding citizens, you are taking away the best defensive weapons citizens can have. Regardless of what you do, you are not going to get them out of the hands of criminals. Thus, you would be putting law abiding citizens at a serious disadvantage.

See England for an example. Btw, the home invasion rate in England is about 9 times higher than it is in the USA, and half of England’s home invasions…as opposed to under 10% in the USA…happen while the residents are home making them much more dangerous crimes. England’s violent crime rate is, in general, much higher than ours. So is Australia’s. Why? Because law abiding citizens can’t defend themselves and the criminals know it. FBI studies and interview with criminals have confirmed this reasoning. Please, please, please, do some honest research.

2. You obviously don’t understand what the why the founding fathers created the second amendment. In case you were not aware of this, they were opposed to standing armies in peacetime. They saw them as tools by which governments suppressed the people. Thus, they went with a model of national defense that was similar to what the Swiss use. Instead of having a standing army, they had a “militia”. The militia was, and still is, defined by Federal law as all able bodied males of fighting age (something like 18 to 40, I forget offhand). “Well-regulated” in those days meant “well-trained and well equipped” and “arms” meant, and still means, weapons typically used by individual soldiers or militia men. So, in today’s USA, “arms” actually means M16s, M4s, semi-auto pistols, etc. So, not only does the 2nd amendment protect the right of citizens to keep and bear semi-auto’s, it actually also protects the right of citizens to keep and bear fully automatic weapons (that’s why they aren’t actually illegal).

By doing this, the founding fathers ensured (or at least tried to) that the people in the USA would always ultimately hold the power and could not be subjugated by either foreign enemies or our own government.

Again, please, please, please do some honest research.

If you think the 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be changed, push to amend it. I, for one, will fight you every step of the way, but that is proper way to achieve your goals. You can’t just ignore the constitution. I’m sure you have issues with some of the other ignoring of the constitution that is going on these days. Realize that what you propose is no better. America is losing our identity, and you are a part of the problem.

But, before you really decide you want to get rid of the real meaning of the second amendment, take an honest look at England and Australia to see what happens to violent crime rates when guns are taken from law-abiding citizens. While your at it, look at the crime rate in Switzerland where just about every household in the country has at least one semi-automatic rifle (similar to an AR-15).

(You might also want to look at the history of gun control in other countries. Hitler, for example, was a pioneer of gun control. Mussolini instituted gun control. Do you think that what is happening in the Sudan would be happening if the African villagers there had the same weapons as the Arab government and the Janjaweed? I don’t think so.)

(By the way…yes, there is name calling and emotion on all sides of every debate in America today. It’s lame on all accounts, but you sink yourself to the same level by responding to only that and not addressing the real issues.)

Thanks.

Stan