Should Dick Cheney be allowed to have a gun?

Or is it fair gun control law, to say that a person who's shot another person without any legitimate reason has given up their right to a firearm?

Does it change anything, why a person shot another person, if that reason isn't "in defense" or "in the line of duty"? How does not being able to tell a human lawyer apart from an 8 inch bird change things? Is that anything like how you can't drive a car on public roads if you can't tell a 55 MPH and a "Do Not Enter" apart?

Keep in mind when you answer that Cheney has the secret service to defend him and his family, and so doesn't have to do this himself.

Since the very first time I heard this story I have thought that Chaney has no business anywhere near a firearm. It's no secret around here that there are several guns in my house. I've also made it clear that my guns are stored securely and the ammunition for said guns are kept completely separately - also secured.

Both of my kids have been raised to always treat a gun as if it's loaded, to never point a gun in an unsafe manner (which means knowing what is at the other end of the barrel without a doubt) and never transport a loaded gun, among other things. There have been times when we were walking in or out of the woods, guns unloaded that we have stopped, reprimanded one of our children for not having the barrel pointed skyward and taken the gun from them. Most of the time when this has happened, the next time they went hunting they were not allowed to carry it in or out of the woods and it has worked effectively form them to always know where that barrel is pointing.

If you don't have the sense to practice safety, you should not be allowed to have a gun. Period.

Self defense is another story.

If someone broke into our house our guns might be good to swing at the intruder, but that's about it. The ammo is locked in a fire safe in the garage. If the situation was different and I was being attacked I think it much more likely that the gun would be used against me because I don't think I have it in me to actually shoot a human being - unless they were an immediate, deadly threat to my children.

I do believe that in some abusive relationships there is a legitimate "temporary insanity" defense or self defense. In that case, after receiving therapy and recovering from the relationship I think it should be a case by case approval.

If you shoot someone by accident out of being careless -- no you should not be allowed even in the vicinity of a gun.

If Cheney, who does not deserve to have a fire arm, is allowed to be licensed to carry a gun, then many people like him will ask to have a gun.. Mobsters or gangsters, a hotdog vendor, I think we should just leave the guns to the Police or the FBI and all. Guns are not fun to carry anyways...

Originally Posted by jabo

then many people like him will ask to have a gun.. Mobsters or gangsters, a hotdog vendor

Mobsters or gangsters dont ask to have guns. They just have them. Hotdog vendors are a whole different animal.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Mobsters or gangsters dont ask to have guns. They just have them. Hotdog vendors are a whole different animal.

good point... but if Cheney is getting a gun, i should get one too...lol

Originally Posted by jabo

good point... but if Cheney is getting a gun, i should get one too...lol

Wal-Mart. Low prices. Always.

Rights to bear firearms, gun controls, have they been really helpful?

I mean almost everyone can have a gun of they wanted to illegally or legally. Having a gun is almost as easy as buying at supermarkets. I don't even think that the existing laws about carrying a gun reduces the crime rate in the country. Not all crimes are committed using guns. What I'm trying to say is that whatever law there would be about guns is that there will always be robbers and thieves and rapists and murderers...

Gun Control is a failure in the United States and always will be.

Originally Posted by BamaStangGuy

Gun Control is a failure in the United States and always will be.

The question was whether Richard Cheney should be allowed to handle a firearm, having shot a man in the face, not people's opinions on the efficacy of overall legislation. So, returning to the question, should Mr Cheney be barred from having a weapon?

Kandi's answer was highly responsible, and speaks well of gun owners. One responder to this poll is frighteningly irresponsible.

Haha.. your polls have right and wrong answers?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Haha.. your polls have right and wrong answers?

That answer reminds me of someone. Who could that be?

Originally Posted by joder

That answer reminds me of someone. Who could that be?

Haha. Touche. I will bite though. Cars have a use, guns have a use. Both can be used to kill injure or maim. You need a license to use either. By the above logic, if I were to be found responsible in an auto accident that injured someone, I should have my drivers license revoked for life? Also, after reading about the incident, it seems that responsibility for the accident was never assigned to Mr. Cheney. I don't believe civil litigation was even brought. Maybe if he had shot someone under 70, or who had contributed less to his political campaign....

As much as it would be nice if it was all a love-filled perfect world, it is not and won't be unless everyones genes are altered (not advocating that).

I have never seen any evidence where the founders of this country viewed guns as only for the military. They hunted. Even had duels. Andrew Jackson's dueled with Charles Dickinson to name just one.

Having said that, they never envisioned the problems of the overpopulated United States of the late twentieth century with its inner cities and gangs. I think one big part of the problem is the catch and release policy or judges that give short sentences for violent crimes.

As much as I disagree with many of Cheney's political views, it was an accident. The Right comes up with mostly crap, the Left doesn't need to also.

Yes, it was a accident--- one that could easily have been prevented and should have been. If you always treat a gun like it's loaded and always handle it in a safe manor, having respect for the damage that an irresponsibly handled firearm is capable of, accidents like that one would not occur. Simple.

Would you be so forgiving if the victim had died?

If it weren't Chaney, but some nobody from the middle of nowhere?

If you are incapable of handling a firearm safely you should not be capable of handling one at all.

You'll get no argument out of me. I just think we have enough laws on the books that address this stuff, and it seems all applicable law was applied in Cheney's situation. Had he died, perhaps we would be dealing with a different situation.

So the guy got shot, I mean whats the big deal. Like you guys don't shoot other people sometimes on accident.

Originally Posted by joder

As much as I disagree with many of Cheney's political views, it was an accident. The Right comes up with mostly crap, the Left doesn't need to also.

Sure it was an accident. No drunk driver means to hit pedestrians and other cars, either - that's an accident, too. Both accidents are caused by negligence. When a person practices that kind of negligence, they waive their right to injure people in that manner.

Accidents happen. That's why Cheney isn't in jail. That's his get out free card. No second card to let him shoot someone else in another negligent accident, though.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Accidents happen. That's why Cheney isn't in jail. That's his get out free card. No second card to let him shoot someone else in another negligent accident, though.

Negligence implies liability, yet neither civil or criminal action was brought. Could it be there was no negligence? Could it be the person who got shot was negligent, like someone running out onto a busy freeway, or someone running into the firing area of a shooting range while people were shooting?

In pretty much every auto accident, if the insurance companies or the police involved, fault will be assigned to one party or the other. Too many accidents and you loose your driving privilege. Kill someone in an injury accident and you can be sent to jail for vehicular homicide under the right circumstances. Get in an accident and offer to pay the damages immediately and you can keep the police and insurance companies from raising your rates/suspending your license.

The point is, the outcome has already been determined. No civil litigation, no criminal prosecution, ergo no loss of permission to carry a firearm. Perhaps you are alleging some cover up? Maybe you are aware of some facts that the rest of us don't that make him actually culpable in this situation? Maybe you have some other facts that showed he then used his connections to get out of the consequences attached to said culpability?