Legalize shooting any Republican member of Congress in the head and I'll support allowing guns anywhere in the U.S.

How stupid are these buggers?

Since the Supreme Court finally ruled that the Second Amendment means what it says, that the people have a personal right to keep and bear arms, there will be a decades-long series of laws and lawsuits to flesh out what it means. Democrats had better acquire a new set of principles in that light, if any are to be had. The voters have no consensus.

So does this fine Senator want to be the first one to stand up and allow guns back on airplanes too?

People would be a lot more polite, there would be a lot less crime, and there sure as hell wouldn't be any risk of people running planes into buildings if every citizen was presumed to be armed at all times.

I know, everyone else on Salon would prefer only the criminals and our masters possess weapons. I wish that weren't so; it's possible to be liberal and still be unwilling to surrender all personal sovereignty to the State. I also wish we had more than two legitimate political parties. Six or ten would be better.

A friend of mine recently accused me of being a libertarian over my position on this issue. I said "Really? Libertarians believe in soup kitchens and free public housing?"

You actually can carry a gun on the El as long as it is cased and unloaded. Or at least you could not that long ago. I haven't checked lately.

About 15 years ago, when I was living in the heart of the city, with no need or desire for a car, I would ride public transportation out to a friend's house for our annual deer-hunting trips. I would be in full camo, with a massive gear bag, and a gun case for my 12-ga. shotgun. I took the El to the Rock Island Metra (one of our local commuter rail lines), passing about a dozen different cops along the way, and nobody batted an eye.

If a firearm is properly cased for transport, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to check it as baggage.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

Since you won't ever hear this on Salon, nor any other news source except Fox, I'll enlighten you.

That whole "90% of guns in Mexico come from the US" thing? Not true, and completely misleading. I suggest reading it.

I know most of you will dismiss solely because its from Fox, but I'll atleast try.

As for guns on Amtrak, how many crimes are committed with LEGAL guns versus ILLEGAL guns in this country?

So does this fine Senator want to be the first one to stand up and allow guns back on airplanes too?

-- Jeannette

It's called checked luggage. You can't bring them in your carry on luggage, or on your person, but you can certainly carry them in your checked baggage.

Which is all this bill would allow, for Amtrak to allow firearms in checked baggage, the same as airlines.

I agree, the Second Amendment means what it says, but what it says is: WELL REGULATED MILITIA, not individual private gun owner.

...can we move on to demolishing the notion of the gun-violence Laffer curve too?

Guns are allowed in checked baggage on air planes - the TSA link in my signatures. I don't see any logical reason why similar rules couldn't apply on Amtrak, though I have limited experience with Amtrak and I haven't checked a bag with them.

My question here is why are people so angry and militant about somebody possibly wanting to transport a firearm in checked luggage as per some of regulation over a train? We already have the right to transport firearms in airplanes as long as they are checked in a hard locked case and are unloaded. All you have to do is notify the airline prior to checking in. What is being proposed is very necessary and a rational want of gun owners. Not everybody wants or can afford to have to ship their gun in order to travel with it. Furthermore, to say things like "Legalize shooting any Republican member of Congress in the head and I'll support allowing guns anywhere in the U.S." is the kind of crazy I'm afraid of. If you demonize gun owners simply for legally owning a gun you are something of an ignorant person.

I'm curious where people get this idea. What studies have they seen showing that counties with widespread gun ownership are "more polite" than those without?

I agree, the Second Amendment means what it says, but what it says is: WELL REGULATED MILITIA, not individual private gun owner.

-- BillyFla

The language is clear. 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. The same right of the people as found in other amendments.

Let's reword it.

A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Nothing in the latter would mean that only the well educated electorate would be allowed to keep and read books, it simply states what is the intent, to allow for a well educated electorate to be created out of the general population.

The Second Amendment is the same.

I was under the impression that guns and trains went together like motorcycles and switchblades, or unicycles and bowling pins. Oh well, at least we can rest assured that no one in the near future will attempt to hijack a train and crash it into something.

I wouldn't actually call Dean anti-gun control. He just took the nuanced view that there is a fundamental difference between guns used for hunting or recreation and guns used for crime. He usually cited Vermont's murder rate, which was the lowest in the US at the time, despite the fact that a huge percentage of the population hunts & owns firearms.

I'm from Vermont, and my entire family hunts and we're all liberals (who keep electing a socialist to the Senate). But I do think the assault weapons ban is reasonable, and I'm not an NRA supporter. I also respect DC's right to try to rein in handgun ownership because of their murder and crime rate. But if there's a legitimate case for allowing checked hunting rifles on Amtrak while traveling to a hunting location, it shouldn't become a huge stumbling point for Democrats.

There's room for reasonable debate on this issue.