Your views on gun rights.

Yea Violence is violence people will find a way guns are just easy blame for it. I really not sure tougher laws are gonna help. Might make people have that safer feeling of security but it is a false one. Again Just my Opinion.

Background checks for semi-auto rifles are to short, after a 15 minute phone call my background check to build my ACR 6.8 was done, and my CCW (concealed carry) was one of the easiest things I have ever done. So better classes and background checks, but also a stiffer penalty to those who buy weapons for people who should not have them. But it will only help a little because as all rights are it will be abused.

I think the term "gun rights" is very misleading, at least in the US where the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. The real issue IMO is that most gun owners are responsible, but it only takes a small population of idiots to cause a lot of damage. The key issues of gun control aren't debated because the extremists on both sides drag the fight into a gun BAN, which inevitably ends in a stalemate because of (you guessed it) the 2nd amendment. When a healthy discussion devolves into "no no no no don't touch my guns" and "just get rid of all of 'em because you don't need 'em," nothing ever gets done. What we SHOULD be discussing in my opinion are things like: 1) efficacy of background checks with data to support claims 2) improving and regulating gun safety education 3) improving tracking/registration of guns sales 4) punitive measures for sellers that allow guns ending up in gangs due to negligence BUT I don't think there will be change anytime soon. It only takes 1 idiot for sht to hit the fan and the debate devolves to playground antics. IMO our short term goals would be (3) and (4) because the gangs are getting their guns from *somewhere. The notorious "fast and furious" debacle proves how ineffective our current tracking system is.

Honestly if I am to discuss something like background checks I would like some historical context on the issue. (About to makea Nazi Germany reference but only because it is the most famous case of it. ) First of all license and background checks were pary of Nazi Germany. Those of German heritage had no issue getting a gun, but if you were not German and they found out you were denied or stripped of your gun. Secondly any counter argument that I am trying to scare people into believing our government will turn tyrannical is worthless when we discuss the second amendment. The whole point of that amendment is to defend against tyrannical government should it ever happen. Thirdly my point is it should be a state or city issue and not a federal. There is nothing in the constitution that allows for ANY federal control of fire arms, maybe besides the commerce clause as it is currently and incorrectly defined and used but even then it is not.

Its should be a state issue , but the problem is that each state is horrible at sharing info needed to stop individuals who should not have guns from getting them.Or for stopping people from bringing guns to states with different laws.

True at this point in time. I am actually trying to use my position if elected this November to get Illinois and Iowa to cooperate in comparing welfare. I have nothing against those in trouble and trying to weed out the abusers can be difficult but one solution is states sharing welfare recipient list so that duplicates may be weeded out. I say this because in my campaign talking to people I constantly hear people driving from Dubuque Iowa to Illinois (on the boarder ) to pick up a welfare check and then back to Dubuque Iowa to pick up another. If it was not a vast plurality of people mentioning this I might not consider the issue but it sounds like a big issue and a growing one in my town. So we will see if states can properly communicate if I win my election.

I was given my first gun at 16, just as the others in my family has always done. I learnt to respect them and am glad I have a working knowledgeof them. Due to growing up poor we needed the deer my father and brothers shot during deer season and it would have been hard for us to survive if we hadn't been allowed to have guns. In the past year I got a handgun and me and my dad enjoy going to the range and having a shoot off. Don't blame guns but the people who shoot them. Even if guns were outlawed they would still be boughten buy the bad guys. It would be just like illegal drugs. Even tho they r illegal everyone can get them if they really want to.

Just the same as a vehicle, I think ownership (not just carry) requires classes and training. Also I believe in having a limit of what is considered acceptable for self-defense and what kinds of weapons are designed for specifically making offensive targeting easier. There are other things I'd get into relating, but it would turn it into like at least 3 seperate discussions. I know there are those that will obtain illegally, but without the laws enforced and/or improved, there'd be more incidents than we have now. I'd feel more comfortable with barriers to prevent more events from happening rather than to confront them more frequently.

There is no such thing as a gun acceptable for self-defense in this day and age with all the advances and availability of body armor. I'll use an example, My carry handgun is an H&K USP 40cal. Good knockdown power without to much over-perpetration with the first 3 round loaded with defense Glacier rounds.Now this is great in normal situations but against body armor it is worthless, so the rest of the rounds are the best offensive rounds I can get giving me my best chances against body armor. But with those rounds I could over-penetrate and kill a bystander. And that is the problem, I need offensive assault style weapons to have a chance to stop them but that means they can get them as well, that is the problem civilian body armor has caused.