The Republican Presidential Candidates Positions on Gun Control

The issue of Gun Control revolves around the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution:
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What did the writers mean all those years ago? Did they refer just to the right to bear arms just to raise a militia? Or did they refer to keeping arms for any purpose? Hunting was pretty much taken for granted back then. There were no corner butchers to go to.

The Republican Presidential Candidates who have expressed their opinions on gun control on their Republican Presidential Candidates web site do agree that there must be some form of gun control. Where they differ is in how much gun control there should . Read the opinions of the Republican Presidential Candidates and see if any of them have the plan that you feel is the best.

Senator Samuel D. "Sam" Brownback
Senator Brownback has his position on Gun Control listed on his Republican Presidential Candidates web site:"At the heart of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. This Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is essential, as the Amendment itself affirms, to "the security of a free state." Restrictive gun control laws aimed at weakening this constitutional right are not the answer. Instead, it is important for the government to enforce criminal gun laws already on the books, for communities to stand against gun violence, and for parents to teach children about gun safety."

 
Comments 1 - 4 of 4  
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Gun Control is "preventative" law enforcement. Only law abiding people will even pay attention to laws - get it? The only laws that are viable are ones that enact a PENALTY for depriving another person of their right to life, liberty, or property. So, go ahead - own a gun. Use it to try to take my money, or my car, and you're likely to meet MY gun face to face.... or, face the criminal penalty for STEALING.

Posted on 01/08/2008 at 12:01:13 PM

When a looter(armed or otherwise) victimizes the most vulnerable members of our society especially after a disaster like Katrina and gets shot robbing someones home or threatening someones family,The community improves by one. The police at first were at home protecting their own families,not protecting yours. The right to use firearms to protect our homes and families must always be preserved.The taking away of a citizens firearm that has committed no crime is a violation of the constitution and the individuals right to self defense.

Posted on 01/02/2008 at 7:01:07 PM

So your plan is to start shooting everyone who was looting??? You cannot take the law into your own hands... the looters were looting not hurting your family. There are other means of handling your ability to protect families. If the police were there taking guns then leave them to take of matters.

Posted on 10/05/2007 at 7:10:00 AM

Instant background checks when purchasing firearms are needed, but gun should not be taken away from people after emergencies. I was there after Katrina and it was very scary with looters and everyone and the police were confiscating people's guns that they needed to protect their families

Posted on 07/28/2007 at 11:07:00 AM

Comments 1 - 4 of 4