GUN RIGHTS

It's relatively simple - I support the Second Amendment - period. Those who don't like guns don't have to OWN guns. The Brady Bill is unconstitutional, not to mentioned inherently flawed in the respect that I would question whether criminals, who desire to own a gun for the purpose of committing crimes, would generally consider purchasing guns through legal channels or submit to background checks. So what does the Brady Bill really pre-empt? If I were a criminal, I'd think I would want to arm myself in a way that would NOT provide a traceable purchase, and which would not circumvent the provisions of the Brady Bill.

Gun control is supposed to cut down on violence? I would say it hinders the ability of law-abiding citizens to mitigate the effects of violence. Besides, I imagined I could buy a number of weapons with which to commit violent acts, without registration - stun guns, hunting knives, switchblades, garrotes, nunchucks, even aluminum baseball bats. All the government intrusion in the world won't do a bit of good if this nation continues to take the attitude that, for example, non-violent drug users must occupy prison space, which in turn, winds up facilitating shorter sentences for violent criminals than they deserve. 

My philosophy is - shift the distribution of punishment in the direction of those who willingly commit violent crimes, and you would, by and large, create more of a deterrent than could ever result from the restriction of Second Amendment rights.