Gun Control Debate - Tazewell, VA

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Tazewell, VA.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Tazewell opposes
Oppose
 
13
Support
 
1

Vote now in Tazewell:

Comments
1 - 19 of 19 Comments Last updated -
strongly oppose

Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 23, 2010
 
Everyone who is a registered handgun carrier has a right to carry one and to use it in self defense. This is the RIGHT of EVERY American citizen!!!
Glock

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 24, 2010
 
Yeah im right there with you! I have a permit and take my glock everywhere.
InSupport

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 24, 2010
 
I support the right to keep and bear arms!
kathy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 24, 2010
 
everyone should have something to help them if they need it.
kathy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 24, 2010
 
everyone need something for defense in the world today since parents cant control there children anymore thanks to the law so the world is out of control.
nectar

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 24, 2010
 
It's your right as a citizen of this country to own handguns. If they were banned that would only bar law-abiding citizens from them while criminals would still get them. Most criminals illegally own/carry handguns anyway. I doubt a ban would change anything for them, it would only put us (law-abiding) at a disadvantage.

Since: Aug 10

North Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 24, 2010
 
I do not trust rednecks.
Ur A Dumb Fer

Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 24, 2010
 
TalesOfFan wrote:
I do not trust rednecks.
I'm guessing your the only shit head vote supporting gun control so far...your distrust of 'rednecks' would be all the more reason to carry..DumbASS! Btw I support the right to carry and am NOT a 'redneck' I was raised many states north of here in a city, I trusted the people walking around in those cities WAY less than I do the so called 'rednecks' in these parts. What are you still doing living around here if you have such contempt for those around you? Go to Boston or San Francisco (or some other utopian for retards such as yourself) you liberal, commie, POS!!!

Since: Aug 10

North Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 26, 2010
 
Ur A Dumb Fer wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm guessing your the only shit head vote supporting gun control so far...your distrust of 'rednecks' would be all the more reason to carry..DumbASS! Btw I support the right to carry and am NOT a 'redneck' I was raised many states north of here in a city, I trusted the people walking around in those cities WAY less than I do the so called 'rednecks' in these parts. What are you still doing living around here if you have such contempt for those around you? Go to Boston or San Francisco (or some other utopian for retards such as yourself) you liberal, commie, POS!!!
I was actually joking with that comment, but I do support gun control. You are aware that gun control is not an outright ban, but instead it will make it so it is harder for people that shouldn't have a gun (people with a criminal record, history of mental illnesses, etc.)to buy one. I do not see why people oppose this. For example, Seung-Hui Cho, the man who is responsible for the Virginia Tech Massacre, had a history of mental illness, but he was still sold guns. Checks need to be implemented to ensure these people do not have firearms.
ur still clueless

Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 27, 2010
 
TalesOfFan wrote:
<quoted text>I was actually joking with that comment, but I do support gun control. You are aware that gun control is not an outright ban, but instead it will make it so it is harder for people that shouldn't have a gun (people with a criminal record, history of mental illnesses, etc.)to buy one. I do not see why people oppose this. For example, Seung-Hui Cho, the man who is responsible for the Virginia Tech Massacre, had a history of mental illness, but he was still sold guns. Checks need to be implemented to ensure these people do not have firearms.
Your missing the point, if someone who shouldn't legally own a firearm wants one, some stupid legislation isn't going to stop them from acquiring one. In fact, said legislation will only make it harder for those of use using and trying to acquire firearms in the responsible and legal way.
Bulldog Mama

Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 27, 2010
 
ur still clueless wrote:
<quoted text>
Your missing the point, if someone who shouldn't legally own a firearm wants one, some stupid legislation isn't going to stop them from acquiring one. In fact, said legislation will only make it harder for those of use using and trying to acquire firearms in the responsible and legal way.
that is the truth. only a naive person or one with hidden motives would want to make it harder to legally own a firearm. do you think any gangmembers went and filled out registration forms at a place like trader jerry's and got their weapon legally? i feel bad for the few exceptions that fell thru the cracks like at va tech ( i don't know the details on how he aquired the weapons), but i think if you look at washington dc a while back and you'll see how the rules on handguns didn't help at all."when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" join the nra and read the armed citizen sometime.

Since: Mar 10

North Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 1, 2010
 
He got em through a loophole in the justice system. A court never ordered it, so his history never made the background check.

To my knowledge that issue has since been addressed.

In my opinion, there is enough laws concerning the responsible ownership of firearms. Adding more just makes for more loopholes and headaches. It would be better served if the ones in place were followed/enforced instead of making new laws to restrict a right.

Like em or not a firearm, esp a handgun is the great equalizer. It's one of the only things that can give a grandmother a fighting chance against a 260 lb nut job who wants to do them harm. They level they playing field. Unfortunately when seconds count, a cop is only a few minutes away at best. Just my opinion, but I'm not about to give up my guns.

Oh, and I do hate rednecks.
Wenesday

Harrisonburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 3, 2010
 
TalesOfFan wrote:
<quoted text>I was actually joking with that comment, but I do support gun control. You are aware that gun control is not an outright ban, but instead it will make it so it is harder for people that shouldn't have a gun (people with a criminal record, history of mental illnesses, etc.)to buy one. I do not see why people oppose this. For example, Seung-Hui Cho, the man who is responsible for the Virginia Tech Massacre, had a history of mental illness, but he was still sold guns. Checks need to be implemented to ensure these people do not have firearms.
Medical records in the US are considered private to the point of sacred so if someone who had sought treatment for a mental illness wanted to purchase a gun there isn't supposed to be any way to check for medical records..I suppose they could require a blood test to check for drugs that are associated with mental illness as well as illegal drugs but that would violate the constitution...As would most of the gun control laws that have been proposed thus far...I just know I feel better living in the county with the highest drug rate in the state knowing that I have a shotgun in my closet
R BAINBRIDGE

Oak Hill, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 11, 2010
 
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, then look out America we will be under gang law with no way to defend ourselves the police will not be able to control it. The anti gun people better wake up.

Since: Oct 10

Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 11, 2010
 
The only kind of gun-ban that may come to pass is the ban of assault weapons...you know, AK-47's, Uzi's, Tec-9's, AR-15's and so on!

I have shot a lot of these types of guns including many assault weapons and I had a really fun time firing off rounds in a street-sweeper, as well as a lot of other assault weapons, but the reality of this issue is this...everyday citizens have no business whatsoever owning semi and fully-automatic assault weapons. These assault weapons were made to kill other people, plain and simple…nothing more, nothing less!

The only people who should have access to such weapons of the assault variety are police, or military personnel and that is it! These types of guns should simply be outlawed for the common citizen as there is no place practical that assault weapons can, or should be used!
common sense

Stafford, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 15, 2010
 
If you think about it, it's a violation of law to kill some one with or without a gun. That law dosen't keep people from killing people so why would making the gun laws we have tougher help. A criminal is going to break the law either way. They have no respect for you or the law. Stricter gun laws will only make it harder on the law abidding citizen to enjoy the rights given to us by the constitution.

Since: Oct 10

Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 15, 2010
 
I've heard the guns don't kill people, people kill people claim and it has some truth to it, but people with assault weapons kill a lot of people! I plan to get a Springfield HD .40, mainly for home protection, but I can see the headlines in the coming years..."bar spat turns into shoot-out...many innocent people shot in cross0fire," or "little league game turns ugly as angry father guns down umpire."

I believe in the second amendment, but the founding fathers had muzzle-loaders...they had no clue whatsoever the kind of weaponary that the future would hold, so smart legislation should be a must, but that's not what is happening...the legislation we are now seeing is stuff like, "concealed weapons allowed in bars that serve alcohol." That's just stupid legislation and any time someone tries to bring a piece of smart legislation to the mix the NRA and others start yapping that they are trying to take away our guns, which never has any basis in fact!

As to gun violence, below are stats pertaining to murders committed with guns. It's the number of people killed in each country, I think last year!

Germany--381, France--255, Canada--165 (which most of these murders were done by U.S. citizens visiting Canada, UK--68, Australia--65, Japan--39, United States--11,127!

Sure, a lot of this was done by criminals, but plain and simply a lot of Americans have little value for life! It seems that smart legislation would do a world of good. I imagine that any parent, who were die-hard gun supporters, who loses a child through a school shooting, or by some idiot on the street takes the kids life, but I imagine that the faimly would gain a whole new view toward guns in general!

Most of my family hunts and I do think people should have a gun for protection, especially in their home, but street-sweepers, AK-47's, etc...well...they have no business in this country, much less legal for any one to purchase!
StinkFist

North Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 19, 2011
 
Just because not many people hunt with handguns. Handguns are meant for killing. They ain't no good for nothing else. I think we should dump them to the bottom of the sea. Before some dumbass comes around trying to shoot either you or me. "VanSant"

Since: Mar 10

North Tazewell, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 20, 2011
 
If you want statistic and fact, then you should have found out that the US numbers also include suicide and accident. If you like firearms, then you would know the majority of "assault" rifles are varmit rounds and easier to control. The only logical debate comes in the form of high cap clips / mags. If you're unarmed and a nutjob decides to open fire, does it really matter if he has to take a few seconds to reload? I guess yelling "please stop" does the trick?

Carry 3 10 round clips / mags or 1 30, the outcome is the same if no one is there to defend themself or fight back. Assault rifles in the military are double edged. You can kill an enemy, take them out of the fight straight up. Or, you can wound them badly. Take them out of the fight, and use up hospital space, money, medicine and resources. Soldiers are expendable, if there is still money to fight.

Some states ban a .50, even though there hasn't been a crime with one. The simple fact is a criminal doesn't follow laws, so any bans or new laws really wouldn't affect them. To blame "assault" rifles, just proves ignorance. Assault rifles are usually defined by nothing more than appearance. How many facts do you want?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

8 Users are viewing the Tazewell Forum right now

Search the Tazewell Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
calling all juggalos and juggalettes (Feb '12) 11 hr Spaz DaJoker 25
people who divorce after many years of marriage (Aug '13) 11 hr Patric 47
Flea Market 23 hr The Tazewell Bulldog 1
Tazewell Football (Jul '13) 23 hr The Tazewell Bulldog 46
staci n kristi 23 hr The Tazewell Bulldog 2
Amber Keatley (Jan '14) 23 hr The Tazewell Bulldog 35
Tazewell Arc Tue Meee 4

Related Topics

Tazewell Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]