Armed Protection in City

[Jiro]

as you know - it's nearly impossible to own a gun for protection if you reside in major city. DC is the only city that banned the guns which was recently struck down as unconstitutional by Supreme Court. Majority of cities do not ban guns but they have strict regulations that make it nearly impossible to own it.

So America! Do you support city dweller to own a gun for household defense?

 

[Jiro]

I read this interesting comment about NYC Mayor Bloomberg who is infamously known as to be staunch anti-gun politician.

While reading the October issue of America's 1st Freedom, I noticed several articles about the anti-gun tyrant Bloomberg. It makes me wonder, with all of his billions, what he does to defend himself, his family and his property? I would bet that he has state-of-the-art security systems and armed bodyguards. So maybe what Bloomberg really believes is that the only people worth protecting are the wealthiest of them all. Every law-abiding American is guaranteed the right to protect his or herself according to the Constitution and the Second Amendment, regardless of their income.

Michael Hass of Clayton, NM

 

[Jiro]

More Guns Equals Less Crime - It's A Fact

Thank you for the recent article, "Only Holes Are In Anti-Gun Argument" by Phil Valentine in the October 2009 (p. 60) issue of America's 1st Freedom As a police officer in New York and a gun owner, I have yet to see the rampant violence predicted by the anti-gun establishment when law-abiding citizens are allowed to exercise their rights. In fact, in nearly 13 years, I cannot point to any instance of a law-abiding gun owner using his or her firearm in a crime. It's true New York's laws leave a lot to be desired. But, as every good cop knows, law-abiding gun owners are our friends. People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts. The facts in this case speak loudly and clearly - when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry, crime plummets. The facts speak for themselves no matter how they might be spun.

Dan Morley of Saratoga Springs, NY

 

[Jiro]

On Sept. 30, 2009 - the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case McDonald v. City of Chicago (detail and wiki-version) which will decide if the Heller decision applies to state and municipal governments.

Mr. Mcdonald and the petitioners are seeking to overturn handgun bans and other various firearm regulations in Chicago and challenging its laws as unconstitutional. Mind you - Heller decision was what ruled DC gun ban as unconstitutional.

Good luck, Mr. McDonald!

 

[Brian]

Wirelessly posted (T-Mobile Sidekick LX 2009: Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 5.0; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

Yeah I support city dweller's right to own weapon for that purpose.

England bans guns anywhere in the country. Police there cannot be armed with weapons at all.

Since the ban in England took place, crimes have increased.

 

[Dixie]

In England, handguns are banned, but not shotguns and rifles used for hunting purposes. It's difficult to conceal a shotgun in the city in my opinion. If you've got a shotgun in London, people are going to notify authorities before you're able to do any damage.

If you live in the city and you don't hunt, you have no need to own a firearm. I think there are too many handguns that end up in the hands of thugs that rob and kill because handguns are so easy to conceal.

Now if you live in the city but you do hunt, then you may own a shotgun/rifle as long as you can provide a hunting license and permit to authorities.

If you live in the country and you do hunt, then I can see where you can own a shotgun/rifle for self defense as help may be too far away to be of immediate use. But you do need to show proof of a hunting license and permit just as city dwellers do, but those in the countryside may have it 'easier' given their living situation.

I do believe Americans should have the right to bear arms against enemies, but handguns are too dangerous and I find that many thugs use them to rob and kill so there needs to be a crackdown on handguns.