Here we go again. The US Constitution guarantees the "common citizen" the right to own guns, so the question is moot. Until the Constitution is changed ( hopefully when hell freezes over ), gun ownership is a basic right. Get use to it.

Yes I a common citizen have the right to own a gun. It is my right to protect myself, my property and family against intruders who mean harm and it is my right to be able to defend myself against my own government should the need ever arise. As it is right there are more gun laws then you can shake a stick at and they basically do no good. The bad guys that want to do harm are getting them and using them any way. You can never stop them. Like wise you will never be able to stop the Country folk that live through out the USA from owning guns. If they are lawful or not, won't matter a bit. Country boys and girls will not be giving them up.

yes I do. I think for common citizens should register their gun every year to make sure it hasn't been used in a crime and to also make sure that the registered owner still has it.

no because its against the law and when we are fighting the we might kill some one by that guns. I am totally saying Australian have not the right o carry guns.

A man or woman should not have to ask permission from anyone for the right to defend the life of themselves and their children and family. If you have to ask permission or are denied ownership of a firearm to protect all that you hold dear and love you are not a free man or woman. Especially in the case of women a firearm is an equalizer and allows her to protect her life and her childrens from a physically dominant bad man. To me it is absolutely evil to debar a good person of such a basic right, it is easy for those in power who pass gun control laws to say citizens do not need firearms, yet many of them have personal guards armed to the teeth, while the subjects and slaves have 911 and at best a 5 minute response time from police when the reason they're calling 911 in the 1st place is beacause they need a police officer right now because a criminal is trying to burst through the window or door in what will take 20 seconds to do. A good person should not have to ask permission to own a gun it is absolutley ludicrous. You are not FREE if you do not have the right to bear arms. I say instead of disarming good people, go after the crimnals and make sure there are no repeat offenders.

Common folk owning guns........ I've never heard anything so against nature. No, it should only be us toffs that go around gun-toting, tally ho!

while the constitution protects your and my right to bare arms, the us supreme court also recognizes limitations - congress' legislation limiting ownership to non-felons and those not convicted of domestic violence. . i'm the only oddball in the us who is both a member of the nra and the aclu. go figure ... . i think that gun ownership and gun possession must be restricted from members of gangs, violent criminals (how is an accountant who feloniously filed tax returns dangerous with regard to gun ownership?), minors unless sponsored by an adult, and anyone who has not completed a gun safety course offered by, say, nra, anybody psychiatrically unstable. purchases ought to be reviewed by nra accessing fbi, state, local, interpool, and psychiatric data bases. people who are approved get the green light through the nra to the gun shop within minutes. people who are denied just get "no" sent to the nra and the gun shop. nobody ought to know what weapons or ammunition people purchase, unless a police officer goes to a gun shop with a warrant to see what an individual purchased there. of course, i think folks ought to be permitted to own and carry guns - as long as those people respect the dangers of guns and they are safe - know how to handle them. should a person who is suicidal be permitted to retain gun ownership? Should guns have trigger locks on them? what about keeping that one revolver in the house next to your bed so if a burglar breaks in you've got it? should different safety laws apply for adults with children in their homes regarding safety?

yes it is the only right that stands between the citizen and our elected servants from taking over our nation

yes I think we should have the right to own guns and I don't think there should be any limitations.

I think that us poor serfs should be able to have any kind of gun that we can afford. I don't know why so many liberals are so comfortable with only the police and military having guns, but that's beside the point. As far as I'm concerned, we have the right to defend our lives, loved ones, and property.

I don't believe that common citizens should have the right to owe guns, unless they are water guns.

Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, if the military can have them, small local private militias should as well. Also, weighing in as a liberal feminist: I should have the right to a) choose what to do with my body and b) use whatever force necessary to protect it =P

Yes it's called the 2nd amendment. I do think that violent criminals and mental people should be restricted from guns ownership.

The fact is that we have them. Both the right to have them, and the guns themselves. The numbers of guns (and ammunition) out here would stagger your mind, and the notion that it could be reduced without massive bloodshed on both sides lies solely within the domain of those utopian fantasy believers who love to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. There are no provisions for limits according to the second amendment, and for very good reason. Pray you (gun ban types) don't ever get to fully realize the reason why. You are outnumbered, out gunned and out classed by virtue of the fact that good shall prevail against evil. So don't try it.

Registration.

I do. And so did the Founding Fathers.

only if they dont abuse it

Yes, I do. In the USA, the 2nd Amendment gives them that right. Crazy people and criminals shouldn't own any weapons.

People with backgrounds that show violent mental illness OTOH Simply because someone is mentally ill doesn't mean they are going to commit violence. Dangerous criminals especially with background of attempted murder, manslaughter, murder. Background checks I realize aren't perfect. I do believe they can help guns getting into the hands of the wrong people. ie People who would use guns irresponsibly and most likely in a criminal way. Either because of severe mental illness or criminality. Last thing most persons who are mentally ill who get the proper treatment, ie meds, therapy, community support are lawful citizens.

Yes, and I'm thankful that RIGHT is guaranteed in our constitution! I think those who have demonstrated they might be a danger to themselves and/ or others should not be allowed to have them. And may also need close supervision.

Common citizens right to own guns- Absolutely! Limitations: Pass a comprehensive dynamic test of responsible, competent handling and use of a firearm. If there are any incidences that bring into question mental stability, a retest required for licensing renewal.

Hell yes, in the USA, the Constitution gives us the right to own guns. Convicted felons, small kids, and people with some mental disorders shouldn't own guns. All normal people of legal age have that right to own them.

Yes I do. That is an inalienable right that was not granted to us by the king or the govt. In order to provide for the common defense, and shall not be infringed is pretty clear. Americans have the right to keep and use small arms.

If passing a new law solves problems then the solution to gun violence is simple. Simply write a law making it illegal for one person to shoot another person. PROBLEM SOLVED !

all should be able to own a gun as long as they have a yearly check to prove they or no one in their house is mental or a crim .but they dont do that and they should

The intent of the Bill of Rights was to protect the citizens from government infringement. You need to understand the political landscape at the time - America had just fought and won a war for independence from tyrannical England. There was no organized government at the time (it was just being set up) and therefore, mistrust flourished. Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and other guarantees were designed to protect the people from government infringement. There is an aspect of this that people tend to not understand: the second amendment isn't a "blanket" right that is open to everyone - it and the other rights come with responsibilities. You can't arm yourself and walk around challenging the law to stop you (as we've seen many times). This is irresponsible behavior and is not protected. People with mental issues that challenge their cognitive ability to determine right from wrong are also excluded. I've seen this argument many times - just because you're a citizen doesn't mean you have the right to bear arms if you are incapable of exercising that right properly. And of course, there is the criminal element - that goes without saying. If the government (and the Liberals) want to reduce gun violence, they need to focus on the source of the problem (criminals), not inhibit the solution (responsible citizens). The only thing this does is create more criminals.