Are America's gun laws too lenient? Yes or No?

[billbuckhead]

Poll question: Are America's gun laws too lenient? Yes or No?

[Junkdrawer]

1. We need to shut down the illegal gun trade. n/t

[EMdamascus]

26. Yeah lets do that

Lets start by throwing the criminals in jail! For their whole sentence! And if they commit a gun related crime lets tack on a few more years! Also let's make it illegal to sell a firearm to a convicted felon or mentally unstable person. Oh wait those laws are already on the books. I think you may have another agenda.

[Junkdrawer]

39. Here's the plan...

1. Strengthen law enforcement tools to crack down on corrupt gun dealers and curb illegal gun trafficking.

The NRA often argues that we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have. The problem is, we aren't enforcing the ones we have and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) does not have the tools needed to do so. Congress needs to repeal irrational legal constraints that have tied ATF's hands in enforcing the law against dealers who feed the illegal market. And state legislatures and local governments need to give state and local law enforcement new tools to combat gun trafficking.

2. Extend Brady Background checks to all gun sales.

Since the enactment of the Brady Law over 10 years ago, more than 1.3 million felons and other prohibited purchasers have been blocked from buying guns from licensed gun dealers. As important as the Brady Law is, it only applies to sales by licensed gun dealers, and four out of every ten guns are sold by unlicensed dealers with no background check at all. State legislatures must extend Brady background checks to all gun sales, wherever they occur. Congress must pass a federal law. Our national policy should be no background check, no sale, no excuses.

3. Stop large-volume gun sales that supply traffickers.

It is possible in most states for "straw purchasers" and traffickers to buy unlimited numbers of guns to sell to the illegal market. This must stop. State legislatures need to limit the number of guns a person can buy. Congress must pass national limits. A person who buys a dozen guns at a time is not buying them for hunting, but for resale to criminals on the streets.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/illegalguns/

[slackmaster]

47. Federal government does not have the authority to regulate all private sales of used firearms

...four out of every ten guns are sold by unlicensed dealers with no background check at all.

That's baloney.

Anyone who runs a business selling firearms without an FFL is breaking existing law.

If you are referring to the secondary market of used firearms transferred in occasional non-commercial intrastate transactions between unlicensed individuals, please refrain from using misleading terms like "unlicensed dealers".

[krispos42]

137. There are no "unlicensed" dealers

The phrase "unlicensed dealers", like "assault weapon", "tax relief", "partial birth abortion", "cut and run", and "death tax" is part of controlling the language so you can control the debate. It's framing the argument on somebody's terms, and a key reasons Democrats have been losing politically the past few decades. The Republicans have a lot of brain power and organization going to "the message", and that is why they have controlled the language of politics the past thirty or forty years or so.

The phrase "unlicensed dealer" implies that the person should be licensed but isn't.


There are licensed gun dealers, private sellers, and illegal dealers. Licensed dealers are Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), private sellers are people like you and me who sell guns once in a blue moon, and illegal dealers that do it as a business, but without the burden of being legal.

FFLs have a real or virtual storefront, and do it for a living. They can buy new guns, send and receive them by a delivery servie across the country, and must perform a background check and keep records on every transaction.

Private sellers who occasionally sell their firearms to people within their own state do not have to do any background checks or collect sales tax. Tyically this is friend-to-friend.

Illegal dealers are just that: illegal. They make their money selling guns without a license. They sell them to whoever wants one without any background checks, records, or restrictions. And the guns that they aquire to sell they don't ask any questions about, either.

Some corrupt FFLs have a nice side business in the illegal gun trade, perhaps selling used guns to select criminal associates under the table, for example.


I agree that the second idea is a good idea. The two major sources of criminal guns are theft and family/friends, so having even private transactions going through the NICS check would, I believe, cut down on a lot of guns to criminals because the excuse "Hey, I didn't know he had a record" no longer applies. As long as the fee is limited by statute to, say $20, and no record the guns make, model, or serial number is made. However, as slackmaster noted, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate intra-state commerce. So that's a problem.


Regarding the third, I do think that limiting firearm purchases to 12 per 12-month period is a good idea, as long as there is a waiver process in place where a person could put in writing a request to go past the limit for legitmate purposes. Like, say, starting a shooting range and having rental guns. This way, if a person is at a gun show and sees a few collectables he or she wants, he can do cash-and-carry right there instead of driving all over creation to pick up three rifles.

[AlinPA]

2. It's not the laws, it's the U.S. culture. Guns are seen as equalizers or ways to get even easily,

and tools for crime.

[Pavulon]

3. Try the leniency out

Take a two pieces of pipe one 3/4" and on 1". (Will leave out details requiring 5 minutes to make a shotgun) now be sure it is less than 12" over all.

Or saw off a sears special shotgun.

The idiots would tell you it takes minutes to make a machine gun, it does not. However if you find one and keep it you are in the same boat..

Take it to your local police station and ask them if it is legal.

You will be charged with a felony carrying a 10 year mandatory sentence and a 10,000 dollar fine.

The NFA penalties are enforced. Enforcing the law is critical.

What gun law are you talking about, in particular?

[mvccd1000]

4. There are some 20,000 gun laws on the books.

That's a statistic I read somewhere, and no, I don't have a cite. Presuming it's true, though, and 20,000 laws aren't stopping the occasional random shooting...

What's that magic law that IS supposed to stop the shootings?

[Toots]

48. I know, let's get everyone to carry a gun and all will be right with the world

I just don't think America has enough guns and why o why can't more states make it so more people can carry guns into all aspects of public domain... Why????? :shrug: If every child over ten were allowed to carry a gun just think what a paradise we would live in...Those sheriffs of the old west in Tombstone and Dodge City just didn't know what they were talking about when they wanted to restrict carrying guns in town...It just couldn't work..

[Dimensio0]

90. Do you have anything intelligent to say...

...or do you just want to knock down more strawmen?

[Dimensio0]

91. Delete

Self-delete (dupe)

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. What kind of stronger laws?

Making it illegal for felons to buy guns? Oh wait, it is.

Making it illegal for people committed to psych wards to buy guns? Oh wait, it is.

Mandatory background checks on every purchased gun? Done.

What magical law is going to stop the people who illegally buy guns and then go on a shooting spree against a rival gang for invading their turf? Banning all handguns?

That must be it. BAN ALL GUNS. That way, no one will be able to get their hands on one again. Just like banning drugs took them off our streets.

[ThomWV]

160. Confication of all guns will be the only thing that makes the anti-gun nuts happy.

Apparently they feel that the Bill of rights only counts if they happen to like what it says.

[Richard Steele]

177. All guns...except the ones they keep hidden in their nightstands.

The loudest, most extreme "gun grabbers" are usually
elitist hypocrites who have a pistol stashed somewhere...
because they're "special", and they "can handle that responsibility"
(unlike the ignorant unwashed masses), dontchaknow.

I'm not naming any names...:eyes:

[krispos42]

6. General question to responders... how many have actually bought a gun?

Reasonably recently, from a federally licensed dealer?


Just to sort out people that have gone through the process versus people that base their opinion on the mainstream media.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apocalypsehow]

8. Well, there really is no justification for anyone but military or law enforcement

to posses a handgun. Or assault rifles. Those should go. We can talk about grandpa's shotgun after we bring sanity to the handgun and assault rifle craze.

This really isn't an issue I care all that much about, but after the incredible, unjustified ad hominem attacks of "pro-gun" poster over another issue, I worry more about such firearms in such unstable hands.

[Dimensio0]

11. Indeed...

Things would have been far better for this woman if she hadn't possed a handgun.

Assault rifles are already tightly controlled by the NFA. Why should we outright ban them when there is no evidence that they are a problem at present?

[wolfgangmo]

85. Why not a shotgun

It is a better weapon for house invasions like this, is much less likely to be stolen and used in a random crime, and easier to use. Besides the sound of that shotgun cocking does stop a lot of people in their tracks.




It is also less likely to have resulted in a death.





I don't believe in total gun control but handguns are inherently dangerous as are assault weapons.

[Dimensio0]

93. Why are "assault weapons" inherently dangerous?

Most definitions of "assault weapons" put them as a subclass of rifles.

All rifles combined are less likely to be used in a crime than any other class of firearm.

What makes "assault weapons", which are only a percentage of that class of firearms less likely than any other to be used in a crime, "inherently dangerous"?

[SecularNATION]

14. Should go? Says who?

What is an assault rifle? Let's hear your definition.

[apocalypsehow]

15. Says me - and hundreds of millions of decent people everywhere

in not only this country, but numerous countries around the world who do not have near the amount of gun violence that ours does by the simple expedient of outlawing the ownership of such deadly weapons in private hands.

As for your other question, definition of an assault rifle? Anything that shoots more than once without having to be reloaded is my "definition" of such a violent instrument. I don't really spend a lot of time trying to make myself feel manly by fantasizing about assault rifles and their "definition" as a rule, so that's the best I can do.

[SecularNATION]

17. You don't know

"Anything that shoots more than once without having to be reloaded is my "definition" of such a violent instrument"

I see. So, you favor banning any rifle that is not single shot. IOW, just about every rifle manufactured in the last 150 years. Good luck getting THAT accomplished.

AH, learn something about the subject. Don't be another ignorant Democrat who doesn't know shit about guns, yet is adamant about banning them. People like you have dragged the Democratic Party down to defeat, time after time after time.

[derby378]

50. I've got an even better idea...

As long as we're having gun policy being dictated by people who don't know anything about guns, let's also have our national healthcare policy dictated by people who don't know jack about healthcare. I nominate the bean-counters from CIGNA, Tenet, NYLCare HMO, etc. - they've done so much good for doctors and their patients over the past 14 years.

[wolfgangmo]

86. But that is what we have already.

Here's a thought. What if we had medical care decided by a group of citizens instead of the bean counters? Better?

[derby378]

134. Which citizens do you have in mind?

I'd rather that doctors and similar healthcare professionals decide what medical care in America is like. In other words, a patient's medical care should be between that patient and his or her doctor. The way it should be.

Same thing with gun ownership. It's your choice.

[krispos42]

18. Replacing gun violence with knife violence is not progress

They tried your idea in the UK. As a crime control measure, it continues to fail.




Interestingly, it wasn't passed as a crime-control measure, but as an anti-mass-shooting measure.




Remember, the gun in the hand is not the motive of a killer, but the means.

[billbuckhead]

44. The UK has 3 times less murder, I guess to some that's not success

:eyes: You can out run a knife.

[krispos42]

49. "Success"

Pay special attention to the yellow line; it's the ratio of US to UK homicides.

"Success" :rofl:

[krispos42]

178. You'll have to speak up...

I can't hear you over the roar of the crickets...

[Dimensio0]

23. Nice way to poison the well....

...imply that anyone who disagrees with your position is not "decent", and declare victory on moral grounds.

It might make you feel good, but I suggest that you not consider it a sign that your position is rational.

[slackmaster]

46. Indeed, a classic No True Scotsman fallacious argument

Welcome to DU, Dimensio0.

[Pavulon]

27. By definition

assault rifles are controlled by the NFA. An assault rifle is capable of select fire modes (S-1-3-F), and firing a reduced capacity military round. This is a technical description. The term assault rifle was coined assholes, nazis (real ones, not the comparative kind).

The term assault weapon was made up by another asshole, Josh Sugarmann. It has no technical description. It covers scary looking AR REPLICAS but not the wooden mini-14. Scary bad, wood ok. Pretty stupid.

If you go in to GD P and talk out your ass about candidates positions they will crucify you. If you post on a firearms thread you should understand the basic function of what you want to ban. It takes five minutes on wiki to get a basic understanding.

Your position just banned my Beretta shotgun used for trap shooting. $3000 dollar shotguns aren;t to popular with the crime crowd.

[wolfgangmo]

92. Let's not parse words

I am not sure but perhaps a better definition for assault weapon would be a weapon that can fire in either full auto or semi auto modes. Like an AR or AK-47 or Uzi.



Shotguns - no. Winchester repeaters - no. Should we add anything to this list?



Does anyone here actually maintain that handguns contribute to the murder rate and crime rates? If so then why do other countries has lower stats on gun deaths. Yes, knives and clubs and cars and iPods can kill people , but you can avoid and outrun a lot of that shit. A bullet - not so much.

[Pavulon]

129. I have gotten dead drunk

and walked all over geneva. No violent crime, basically none. There is a cultural problem in the US that contributes to out murder stats.

assault weapon is a made up term. Some guy at VPC coined it. Assault Rifle is a descriptive term like "big game rifle".

Many swiss have true assault rifles, what we call an NFA registered machine gun. They do not kill each other. I think the law regulating machine guns here is basically reasonable. Except for the post 86 ban.

I am all for reasonable laws.

[benEzra]

200. All such weapons are ALREADY tightly controlled.

I am not sure but perhaps a better definition for assault weapon would be a weapon that can fire in either full auto or semi auto modes. Like an AR or AK-47 or Uzi.

All such weapons are ALREADY tightly controlled in the United States, and possession of one outside of police/military/government duty without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony. Any gun capable of firing, or being easily modified to fire, more than one shot when the trigger is pulled is classified as a "machinegun" under Federal law and is restricted under the same laws that restrict 105mm howitzers, 500-lb bombs, hand grenades, and shoulder-fired missiles.

An AR-15 is semiauto only, just like an ordinary .22 squirrel rifle or a pistol. Ditto for civilian AK lookalikes (I know, I own one), which are identical in every way to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle.

[EMdamascus]

30. Might want to check your calendar

Repeating arms have been around almost as long as gunpowder. I can't believe this tripe!!!

[jmg257]

34. "The people of America would never consent to be deprived the privilege of carrying arms"

Mr Jackson: I am of the opinion that the people of America would never consent to be deprived the privilege of carrying arms. Though it may be burdensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated...

...In a republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to restist tyranny and usurpation…"

It is our duty and RIGHT to be effectively armed. The freeedoms of we, the people depend on it. If you can't handle that responsibility, or choose not to enjoy that right, NO problem, but the rest of to must be allowed to make that same choice - we take those liberties seriously.

[wolfgangmo]

94. I agree

But if tyranny comes I won't be grabbing a .22 special. I'll grab a shotgun and a rifle with a scope. Just sayin.




Handguns are only useful for things like law enforcement and crime. I say the cops should be able to keep them. The crooks- not so much.

[slackmaster]

45. Your definition of assault rifle would include most hunting rifles

Typical bolt-action sporting rifles have internal magazines that hold five rounds of ammunition.

Your proposal isn't going to get very far.

[index555]

190. It's not the guns, it's the culture.

You only have to look at Switzerland for a counter example.
Going out to shooting events is a even more of a national pastime there than it is here, kids learn to handle guns by the time they are around 6.
Yet the accidental gun death rate is lower, and the homicide rate is lower than most countries that ban guns completely.

The problem is that our culture is steeped in violence, "getting even", etc.

[dysfunctional press]

21. what an incredibly ignorant statement.

"Well, there really is no justification for anyone but military or law enforcement to posses a handgun"

yeah, that's why crime rates go down in conceal-carry states- because criminals are afraid that a potential victim might have grandpa's shotgun in their jacket pocket...

:eyes:

[NickB79]

24. You mean the law enforcement that took 45 minutes to arrive to the 911 call

My mom made in 1997?

Fuck that.

[wolfgangmo]

97. Here's another thought...

... Let's actually fund our cops enough so that they can put the boots on the ground.




As it sits we don't pay for enough cops. We would rather give tax cuts to the Uber rich and carry a gun?




That is insane. And yes I own guns. Heck, my family has enough firepower in our houses to invade another country, but we don't have a single handgun.

[jmg257]

99. Can I get some as bodyguards 24/7? Otherwise there will never be enough. Handguns though? Great

and convenient for self-defense, especially when not at home (where other arms may be a better choice).

[michreject]

121. I have 42

:)

[jmg257]

25. Because we trust Bush and the State so completely? TOTAL justification thanks to him et. al.

WAKE UP! We the people are supposed to hold the power, NOT THE MILITARY OR POLICE STATE.

WE need the defense from tryanny NOT the State. WE need the defense from criminal acts NOT THE POLICE.

The constitution meant to secure the balance in OUR favor not theirs. OUR freedoms, OUR lives, depend on it.

[EMdamascus]

28. What is an assault rifle?

Never seen one advertised anywhere. Oh wait you must mean those scary looking guns you see in the movies. You know the ones with the black paint and big magazines that don't run out! Oh and don't forget those horrible barrel shrouds!

[Paladin]

61. An Assault Rifle Is Whatever The New York Times Says It Is

You know, because I have some knowledge about firearms and in order to avoid pointless and interminable nitpicking, I once referred to such guns as "assault-style rifles" or "military-styled weapons." Then I realized that all I was doing was aiding your side in controlling the terminology and thus controlling the argument. Well, fuck that. So now, if the NY Times or the evening news refers to a gun as an assault weapon, that's good enough for me. I'll let guys like you run down whatever 23-point check list of features the NRA has issued to decide whether it's an assault weapon from your standpoint. Have fun....

[Pavulon]

70. Technical Language is a bitch

I mean if you want to discuss economics you have to learn to speak in with technical terms. Whatever you do for a living there is probably a technical language involved.

Now as a working materials engineer the NY times knows jack shit about say, flying optics cutters and why I should use one in place of a moving material system.

Assault weapon is a fake word made up by the VPC.

Your position relies on ignorance. It is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss anything if the language used is not descriptive.

[Dimensio0]

95. In other words...

...you openly admit to being dishonest with terminology to create ambiguity.

Thanks. It's so rare when a gun control advocate actually admits to using an inherently dishonest tactic.

[Paladin]

132. Pull Your Head Out Of Your Ass

There's nothing dishonest about what I said. I am honestly electing not to support the gun rights movement. The term "assault weapon" is politically charged, and I know where my sentiments lie. If you don't like it, shoot me.

By the way---which Democratic presidential candidate are you casting your vote for this time?

[Pavulon]

136. The same one I always support

the one on the fucking ticket. You can support whom ever you like. Choosing to do it ignorantly is a choice.

[derby378]

138. So you're admitting to using a purely subjective and meaningless term

That's your choice, but it also means that I've got your number. My choice is to help deprive VPC, CSGV, and the Brady Campaign of one of their tools with which to poke and prod voters at large.

[Pavulon]

35. BTW The 12GA shotgun

it THE most destructive close range weapon available to civilians, arguably to anyone. They are easy to modify and there millions of them. If you have never fired a weapon and I hand you an m4 and tell you to hit a moving target at 40m with controlled (or uncontrolled) fire you probably can not.

The same exercise with a shotgun would probably end in a target hit.

People who ignore the existing MURDER ban are probably not going to observe a GUN ban..Ya think?

[derby378]

53. Shotguns have their place - but there's strengths and drawbacks

One of the main drawbacks of a shotgun is recoil. I'm over six feet tall and am, well, "stocky," so recoil may not be so much of an issue with me as it would with someone who's a foot shorter and weighs 130 pounds. Depending on the model of shotgun, recoil buffers may be available to help modify the amount of "kick" from the blast.

I could go with a shotgun. If I opt for pump-action, it would be a 12-gauge Mossberg 590 Special Purpose. If I choose semi-auto instead, I'd probably get probably a 12-gauge Saiga. Great design either way.

[Pavulon]

55. Agree, A blowback

gun like the benelli M4 is capable of firing reduced recoil loads. These are very expensive but a small framed person could use this weapon.

Tactical shotguns a bit of a joke in my opinion but the concept is a good one.

For home defense shotguns are unrivaled. Even by an issue Colt M4. I have not handled the MP5 or similar smg s but the colt M4 is not the first choice I would want for my home.

Shotguns are simple, extremely lethal, and inexpensive.

[apocalypsehow]

60. As I first stated above, this isn't really an issue I care all that much about, BUT

it is indisputable that were handguns not in private hands, some of the more horrific massacres of the recent past would not have occurred. And, really, what justification is there for someone to own an assault rifle, regardless of how you wish to "define" it? Hunting rifles, shotguns? Fine. Get yourself registered, fingerprinted, proof of having taken a gun safety course, and proof of a secure area or safe in which you store those weapons. But there is no reason an M-16 or AK-47 should be in private hands. Want to play around with assault weapons? I know four different organizations that would be delighted to have you join their ranks, or so their TV advertisements are constantly telling me: the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are hiring as we speak! Have fun.

[Edweird]

64. There are very very very few actual M16's and AK47's in private hands.

They are insanely expensive (well over $10,000 each), a significant pain in the ass to obtain, and are practically NEVER used criminally.

What you are seeing are look-a-likes that do not have the capability of firing automatically.

Get your facts straight.

[apocalypsehow]

68. I pass a Marine Corps recruiting station every morning on my way to work,

can I stop by and tell them you're interested? Because that's about the only place - along with the other branches of the military - that anyone in these United States should be handling M-16's or AK-47's, "look-a-likes" or not.

[Pavulon]

74. I qualified on an M16a2

and carried an M4. Neither if which can be owned by a civilian without $20,000 and a fbi background check.

The replica weapons are not the real thing. If you have one part of the real thing without the stamp you are a felon. The punishment for violation of this law is harsh and involves prison.

I do not own replica weapons because they are expensive and are outperformed by other rifles. Will you be banning any rifle that can fire from a boxed magazine? What about a rifle that can put 5 shots under a teacup at 1000m? I mean that is pretty scary.

The rifle used by the military as a "sniper" platform is based on the most common hunting rifle in the world.

Will you be banning a Remington model 700 rifle?

[benEzra]

76. M16's and AK-47's are already tightly controlled, and always have been.

Nobody's talking about "banning" M16's and AK-47's, because possession of an M16 or actual AK-47 outside of police/military/government service is already a 10-year Federal felony, unless you first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch has absolutely nothing to do with actual assault rifles or other military automatic weapons. It's solely about outlawing NON-automatic rifles, rifles that happen to be the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in the United States. More people lawfully and responsibly own "assault weapons," as defined by H.R.1022, than hunt.


Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, small-caliber farm/utility rifle banned by name by H.R.1022


AR-15, small-caliber non-automatic rifle and the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States, banned by name by H.R.1022


SKS carbine, the single most popular centerfire rifle in U.S. homes, banned by pedigree by H.R.1022

None of the above guns are automatic, BTW. All fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time.

Nor are rifles of any description a crime problem in the United States:

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

That's for all rifles combined, not just "assault weapons." Compare them not only to shotguns, but to hands/fists/feet, knives, and impact weapons...rifles just aren't commonly misused in this country, though that's not what the corporatist media wants you to believe.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[jmg257]

79. If we were for supporting tyrants, usurpers, & the loss of rights, more could agree. Otherwise, we

should all prefer the enjoyment of our liberties, & not the concession & concentration of ALL real power to the state.

Tyranny is so 1700s (and of course SOP under Bush and company). I don't know about others, but as for me - I will take liberty.

[Edweird]

117. What does a recruitng station have to do with you not knowing what the hell you're talking about?

I already did my turn, thanks for asking.

They are, essentially, the only ones handling actual full auto/selective fire weapons, outside of a very few, VERY tightly regulated collectors and dealers.

Edited to add:
Show me you cause for such concern. Show me how many American civilians have been shot by American criminals with M16's in the past 10 years.

[Recursion]

163. Why shouldn't a civilian have an AK-47 lookalike?

It fires exactly the same as the traditional-looking hunting rifle that doesn't seem to bother people.

[SecularNATION]

77. You don't know WTF you're talking about.

"But there is no reason an M-16 or AK-47 should be in private hands. Want to play around with assault weapons?"

AH, watch this video and learn something - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9cDbA8O9-c

[apocalypsehow]

101. Okay, I went and watched your video, all 10 minutes 53 seconds of it. Very informative!

And I want to amend what I said above: I don't think semi-automatic weapons of the type the very helpful San Jose Police Officer demonstrated belong in private hands, either. Shotguns, that bolt rifle thing, and the "Gunsmoke" type lever rifles for hunting, are one thing. But the only real difference between the fully automatic stuff in that video and the "semi-automatic" ones is the stroke of a trigger finger. So thank you for helping me define what is and is not "semi-automatic," and helping me come to realize that those shouldn't be in private hands, either.

[Pavulon]

106. You realize a single us sniper killed hundreds

with this weapon? It is bolt action. BAN IT..SCURRY Sniper rifle..Be sure to ban 5 gallon buckets and oyster they probably kill more people than "assault rifles"



Scary and black..Ack.

[apocalypsehow]

111. And I wager that "single us sniper" you're talking about answered to the name "Corporal"

or "Sergeant" when addressed by his fellow colleagues in the United States Army or Marine Corps, didn't he? I sure haven't heard about a crazed sniper spree involving "hundreds" in the United States, lately, so I'm assuming this "hundreds" involved combat in Vietnam or Iraq. So your post pretty much supports my point, doesn't it?

[Pavulon]

113. No it destroys your position

A person using your definition of a legal firearm. A hunting rifle for all practical purposes can kill many people. So banning a certain feature or color of weapon is idiotic.

I believe whitman used weapons that would be legal under any ban cosmetic and toothless or not.

Addressing the root cause is the issue is harder than chasing your tail with gun control. The swiss do not have this problem but do have large numbers of machine guns in circulation.

There is a cultural problem at work here. Banning it would be as effective as banning drugs.

It is so hard to get dope, I mean it is banned, no one ever smokes dope anymore..

[Dimensio0]

119. Semi-automatic rifles are rarely used in crimes...

...so why do they need to be taken out of civillian hands?

Do you have an argument based upon rationality, or are you just jerking your knee and deciding that you know what is best for society, facts be damned?

Also, how would you propose removing the millions of semi-automatic rifles already in civillian hands?

[derby378]

142. So you're in favor of burning the Second Amendment?

Okay, got it.

[east texas lib]

188. Beg Pardon...

But what more justification than my family's (or my own, for that matter) survival must I
have? My state limits (other than licensed handguns) what you can carry on your person
to a knife with a total overall length of five or so inches. How could you possibly stop
an attacker who is armed with a gun? Since I have no trousers with a shotgun sized pocket,
a pistol makes the most sense for my continued presence on this earth. Perhaps, one day
when the police reach the point where they no longer use firearms in their daily business(a
shepard's staff maybe), I shall no longer require mine. But I just don't see that day
coming very soon.

[DiamondJay]

9. seriously, this is one wedge issue not worth it

and actually worth flipping on, being for guns to protect families AND legislation that exists to regulate who gets em

[Unrepentant Fenian]

22. How many votes should we throw away ????

I have bought firearms from a FFL and I have bought them via private sale, both ways being totally legal and reasonable. I am a life long, die hard, card carrying Democrat, but I have a lot of trouble trying to figure out why my fellow Dems want to keep law abiding citizens from being free to buy guns. I don't hunt, because I'm too lazy not that I'm opposed to it. I really enjoy target shooting and I enjoy target shooting with my AR-15 rifle. To me, gun laws are like drug laws. No matter how many laws we pass, we will never keep guns or drugs out of the hands of people who will use them illegally. Would anyone support a law that made prescription pain killers illegal because a small percentage of them fall in to the hands of criminals? I sure hope not! The same thing applies to guns. As far as assault rifles go, they're just another gun. Nothing special or more dangerous about them
I think that we would pick up a very large chunk of swing votes if we would just let up on guns. A woman's right to choose and gun laws are the biggest hot button issues separating "us" and "them" and are also the deciding factor for a lot of swing voters. We can NEVER let up on the Right to Choose, but I think we would do well to leave the gun issue lie.

[-..__...]

57. Gun control advocates here need to be careful what they wish for.

For the blissfully uninformed (and the "Hey! They do it in Europe... why can't they do it here" crowd")...

On March 13th, The Supreme Court of The United States is scheduled to hear one of the most important Constitutional cases this century (think in terms of Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education).

The case (DC v Heller), will settle once and for all if the RKBA is an individual right or a collective one.

The main issue at hand is whether or not Washington DC's longstanding ban on the possession of handguns and firearms storage law is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

This is the question (as framed by the court), which both sides are expected to address...

THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C.
CODE §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH
ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND
OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES?
CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2007

I've been following this case rather closely and with great interest. The overall consensuses and mood in various firearms forums seems to be that this will be an easy (but narrow decision 5/4 split... some are even predicting a 7/2 decision), win for gun owners.

The RKBA opponents on the other hand are in a panic mode (the Brady Campaign urged DC not to appeal the case to the SCOTUS), and the briefs filed by them show it.

What remains uncertain, is what level of scrutiny the SCOTUS will apply to the case? (what if any restrictions are allowable and to what degree).

As with any SCOTUS case, both sides are allowed to present and file for the courts consideration "amicus curiae" or friends of the court briefs... either in support of the defendants or plaintiffs.

In DCs case (the plaintiff), 18 members of the US congress (all Democrats) signed a brief in support of overturning the lower courts ruling on the handgun ban (and by default, whether or not the RKBA is an individual right or collective one).

In support of Heller (the defendent),... 250 House members and 55 Senators signed the brief.

It should be noted that neither Clinton nor Obama signed the brief in support of Heller, while McCain did sign it.

It should also be noted that McCain is pretty much despised by the RKBA community (I believe he gets an F rating from the NRA).

The courts decision should be announced around June (great timing.... eh?).

Least anyone think that this isn't going to be an election issue... think again

[Paladin]

62. So....Which Democratic Presidential Candidate Are You For? (n/t)

[-..__...]

69. Too soon to tell.

Whichever one has the most common sense to listen to the RKBA advocates in Congress.

[jmg257]

116. Using tragedy & fear to justify infringing rights of the people..what Neo-con are YOU voting for? nt

[Paladin]

135. I'm Voting For Whoever The Democratic Nominee Is

I wonder if your gun militancy will allow you to do the same. I've got real doubts.....

[jmg257]

144. I wonder sometimes too - respect for those they represent is VERY important in a candidate.

[derby378]

147. Would you have voted for Bill Richardson or Russ Feingold?

Either one would have dismissed bringing back the semi-auto ban, although Richardson supported it once upon a time.

[wolfgangmo]

102. I agree

I am a radical left wing democrat {feed the poor, eat the rich} and a gun owner.




Give the federal and local authorities the resources to keep a control on weapons and criminals. Set up a federal database of guns.




As democrats we need to let this issue lie. It wasn't that long ago since I, and many I grew up with, took gun safety in our schools. My old school still has the shooting range in the basement.

[CTyankee]

131. "Feed the poor, eat the rich." Funny, as a liberal

I have never heard that saying...

[krispos42]

171. "Eat the Rich" is a Fozzy song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akyy594PEww

And Motorhead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h45WnW0ASFY

And Aerosmith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62_w7WmQmRo


Seems to be a theme developing...

[CTyankee]

174. well, that explains it! I am an old fogey with no idea about the music

of that group!

[wolfgangmo]

100. a rational position ...

... would be for a full background check for EVERY weapon sold and the phasing out of handguns.




Just me 2 cents. As for my shotgun and rifles ... well, yes, I would like to keep them - at home and locked up.




I use an AR-15 at work so I'd like to use that too

[-..__...]

10. On a national level....

Ohhhh.... how about...

Repealing the 1986 ban on new production machine guns to civilians...

Repealing the sporting purpose caluse of the 1968 Gun Control Act...

Repealing the 1989 import ban on non sporting purpose firearms...

Repealing the ban on sales of surplus ammunition to civilians...

Pass a national CCW reciprocity law.

State laws that need undoing or repealing... too numerous to mention.

I think that pretty much covers it... for now.

[EMdamascus]

33. I'm with you!

Very well put.

[derby378]

51. Hey, count me in

:hi:

[Pavulon]

52. Bingo.. None of those compromise

core laws like the NFA. National CCW should be in place.

Expanding NFA like penalties to all violations where a gun is used in a violent crime should be done.

[Paladin]

63. Hold Your Breath.... (n/t)

[-..__...]

73. Too bad the Brady Campaign/VPC/MMM/etc hasn't follwed that advice.

When was the last time they had a significant victory or passed a major piece of legislation?

[aikoaiko]

12. There really does need to be an overhaul of gunlaws.

When I evaluate gun laws I use two rules.

1. Good laws allow lawful civilians to possess and use firearms legally when they need them.

2. Good laws keep guns out of the hands of civilians who have proven themselves too untrustworthy or dangerous to possess firearms (except when those laws keep guns out of the hands lawful civilians when they need them).

Some existing gun laws are stupid and need to be changed, some are good as is, and I'm open to new laws as long as they satisfy the above rules.

[SecularNATION]

13. What the Democratic Party needs...

...is fewer anti-gun zealots who can't STFU about the subject. This issue has done more damage to the party then any other. George W. Bush would never have become president in the first place, had it not been for gun control. Democrats, please stop bitching about guns. It only helps the Republicans.

[krispos42]

20. It's a win-win for the Republicans

Republicans are authoritarians, and widespread civilian ownership of guns inhibits that. By adopting it as their own, they get the citizenry to support their authoritarianism.

And if, when Democrats are in control, they pass (or try to pass) gun restrictions, then either a) the Dems take the political fall, b) the citizenry gets disarmed, or c) both A and B.

They're getting Democrats to do their dirty work for them.

[KharmaTrain]

16. Many Laws Are Ambiguous

I served on a jury involving a gun dealer and straw gun buys. At the time I was very anti-gun and initially thought there was no way I would let a gun dealer off the hook...that was until the case went to trial, the evidence was presented and the law was applied. What ensued changed my opinion 180 degrees in that case (as it did for others on the jury) and how screwed up the gun laws are.

There are thousands of laws on the books, but many are either archaic or specialized or negated by other laws. A sharp lawyer can almost always find a loophole in the law that will let the gangbangers go free or that can tie up a jury from reaching any verdict.

These days I favor having gun owners pass tests to show their ability to properly maintain and operate the weapon. There are too many guns that make the concept of confescation impractical and create a different kind of problem as the black market would explode with NO controls...better some than none.

[devilgrrl]

19. Compared to where?

:popcorn:

[Pavulon]

29. I vote for the SWISS model

Even though I an not subject to stop loss (I hope) I could have my sig 550 in the closet. I real assault rifle, not a made up VPC word..

Extra scary. Cant find the pic of the one in the guys kitchen closet top shelf. Over the beans, bread, and canned crap.

[conservdem]

31. In some states, like Massachusetts, they are too strict.

[Pavulon]

32. If you have enough money you can buy around them

just like a pistol permit in nyc. All about forking over the right amount of money.

If you cant afford it, well then your screwed.

[conservdem]

36. I do not own any and really do not want to get one now, but

it strikes me as being wrong to have a system where it is difficult and expensive for most people to legal purchase a hand gun or a rifle. I do not mind the tight requirments for automatic weapons.

[Pavulon]

40. Agreed

The NFA works just fine. The fact that crimes with NFA regulated weapons in non existent proves that the system works. The laws in some states discriminate based on how much money you have.

[B Calm]

37. The right to own guns is a LIBERAL idea! Personal Freedom is also

a LIBERAL IDEA! Republicans only believe in Corporate Freedom.

[Kansas Wyatt]

41. Too bad Democratic Candidates didn't...

Collectively repeat this over and over to the American people.

[jmg257]

38. Something else - explained: "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men..."

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

[Paladin]

66. A Little Reality Check For You

Evil is not prevented by the penitentiary and gallows---the evil has already been perpetrated. I hope this kind of idiotic non-thinking is not a characteristic of current Arkansas jurisprudence.

How typical that a gun activist has to reach all the way back to 1878 to find justification for his viewpoints. And how typical that the quote offers nothing in the way of proactive steps to prevent such evil.

By the way---which Democratic presidential candidate are you casting your vote for?

[SecularNATION]

78. Paladin the "bona fide" Democrat

"which Democratic presidential candidate are you casting your vote for?"

There will only be one come November. I will vote for whomever it is, as will many gun owners. Trying to paint us as not 'real' Democrats won't fly.

[Paladin]

133. It'll Fly If 48% Of You Are Already Opting To Vote Republican

The poll is down in the Gun Dungeon for all to see.....

[jmg257]

87. I don't need justification...it is not necessary when discussing basic unalienable rights. OP

asked for other solutions/explanations/examples - and there it is.

When you accept the reality that guns are NOT the problem, and that the offenders ARE - the majority of which have serious criminal histories, are on probation from prior gun offenses, have ties to illegal drugs, gangs etc., then you will understand.

Also understand that there is NO easy solution for someone accepting of their own demise, and willing to take others out with him. Besides the social aspects of trying to reduce such willlingness to die and murder, the best response to that is to have the ability to protect yourself and your loved ones if God forbid it ever becomes necessary. Helpless victims make poor deterents to violence against them.


Until then, you can just be content that our rights are secured.

Edit: Oh yeah - I prefer Obama, though I CLEARLY disagree with his anti-gun stances.

[index555]

191. However, a single responsible armed individual

could be in the right place to prevent a massacre, or at least stop it from getting worse.(like VA tech)
A responsible person who carries a weapon(like a concealed handgun) does not do so to "shoot someone", but to be ready if the worst does happen.

[Kansas Wyatt]

42. I do not care if someone wants to own a tank and shoot it off.

Only as long as it does not affect another. The moment it affects someone else, then it is a problem.

[KG]

43. yes.

[Wcross]

54. Ah, Billbuckhead is back trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Thanks Bill. The gun issue is a big loser for our party so why not post a skewed poll to make it appear as if we all want tougher gun laws! I did notice how you split the pro-gun voters into two categories 1) gun laws we have are enough & 2)gun laws we have need to be enforced.

Thank goodness you're here to make it appear that democrats will push for more gun laws that do nothing but remove guns from law abiding citizens hands. Good work Bill! Thank goodness Hillary has stated that she wants to work to go after criminal misuse of guns rather than those owned by law abiding citizens. She is a smart lady.

Most Americans realize that gun laws have NO effect on criminal misuse of firearms. The definition of a criminal is one who does not obey the law. Disarming honest citizens does nothing but provide work related safety to the criminals.

You sir, can take your gun "control" and shove it. I hope I wasn't unclear
:)

[SecularNATION]

80. Billblockhead is a Republican

Or, he may as well be. Gun hating zealots have done more to help the GOP win elections than any other group of people.

[Pavulon]

83. Against the rules to call him out by name, but the

meat of your post is true. Gun control is a horribly costly thing for the party. They know this and do not support gun control at the federal level.

[CTyankee]

175. "Disarming honest citizens does nothing but provide work related safety to the criminals"

My neice's stepgrandfather was just that when he became drunk, took out his handgun which was loaded to protect his home from criminals, and shot her dead, wounded her mother and grandmother and then took his own life. Funny how we never can tell who is gonna get drunk and become a criminal...

[Wcross]

186. Ok, I should have said "Honest & responsible citizens". n/t

[CTyankee]

187. But the problem here is that the government doesn't ask "responsible" , it only goes on

"honest," or at least those who haven't ever committed a crime before. Same outcome, however. Two dead, 2 wounded in this particular slaughter.

[Wcross]

189. One murdered, two wounded & one suicide?

One could argue from that situation that our alcohol laws are too lenient as well. Do you want our government to decide who is "responsible" enough? What if the Bush regime decided you weren't "RESPONSIBLE" enough to have an internet connection? What if they could decide if you are responsible enough to vote? Are guns the only way to kill another human being? Sure, it may be "easier" mechanically to kill someone with a gun. The problem is not the tool but the fact that someone decides that killing is the answer. Killing is killing regardless of the tool used.

[CTyankee]

199. I'm sure he had the choice of a knife or his gun. He chose the gun.

Perhaps we both know the reason behind his choice of weapon.

At any rate, I am here responding to this post to tell the story of what happened in my family. Not to presuppose, not to argue, not to try to persuade.

I am relating this story simply to tell what actually happened in a real life situation, not in a hypothetical one. I tell my story on threads where it is appropriate. People reading my story can think it through on their own.

[NickB79]

56. Hmm, so far the pro-gun votes seem to outweigh the anti-gun ones

9% for "No, America is on the right track with guns and gun regulation" and 40% for "Why don't we enforce the laws we have?", vs. 48% for "Yes, America needs stronger gun regulations!".

Showing once again that more gun control is a dead issue, even among Democrats.

[Joanne98]

58. We can't disarm when we're getting attacked by a police state!

[fedupconservative]

59. Do anti-gun people also support the Patriot Act?

What about the National Id card or FBI databases of all Americans?

See once you start screwing with our rights, no matter how well intentioned, you only end hurting the people you're trying to help.

I know some of you feel the gun lobby is out of it's mind wanting no restrictions on assault weapons, but it's not for the reasons you may think. I'd say more than 90% of us gun owners will never own or shoot an assault weapon but we know if assault weapons are banned, our guns rights will be further marginalized the same as our individual rights are marginalized by the Patriot Act.

So please just keep an open mind and whether you agree or not, understand gun owners just don't trust the govt will stop chipping away at our gun rights until the only people who will have guns will be the criminals.

[Wcross]

65. They don't seem to have a problem with taking rights away from citizens.

I would have to say they are cool with everything Bush has done so far in regards to destroying the bill of rights.

[fedupconservative]

67. So you want to fall into the same trap?

Trust me, a lot on my side know our rights are under assault and Bush is the re-incarnation of 'Curious George'.

[Wcross]

72. By "your side", does that mean you are for more gun control?

I am 100% agaianst ANY new gun laws. Lets start enforcing the ones on the books & see what happens.

[Lex Talionis]

75. An unarmed man is a subject,an armed man is a citizen

Someone more enlightened than most said that. In my previous life I would be most glad to have all of you unarmed. It made things much easier, I still know others who think that way. It never ceases to amaze me that the ones who call themselves enlightened and intelligent, don't understand basic human nature. I would be willing to bet that the early natives of this land wished they had modern firearms. European Jews, too. I can, with one call, get what ever I want so making guns illegal want stop those who want it, getting it. If and when civilization as we know it fails. You'll be wishing you were a "gun nut"

[AP]

71. Wrongheaded. I wouldn't care if everyone had a gun in their garage, if gov't treated them the way we

treat cars.

[-..__...]

84. I just checked the BOR and the Constition...

and nowhere is there any mention of cars, motor vehicles, etc.

Personally, I think the analogy is complete nonsense anyways.

One thing I find odd or funny about anti-gun people (or perhaps I should say people who think that the "treat'em like automobiles" approach), is they don't think the whole thing through.

Sure... it would mean operator testing, licensing, registration, insurance (at least in some states).

But it would also mean... 16-17 year olds owning whatever firearm they pleased (and be able to bring it to school).

Convicted violent felons (and those deemed mentally incompetent), could own firearms.

Minor firearms infractions would be treated with a verbal warning or small fine.

Somehow, I really don't think that's what people who suggest that guns be treated like cars had in mind.

[AP]

89. Check the commerce clause?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

Cars are great tools that are inherently dangerous, so the government does everything it can to make sure that they don't kill people, and it generally works, if you measure by the prevalence of cars versus the likelihood that you'll die next time you try to walk across the street or drive to work.

I think there's a smart way to regulate guns without having to take them away from people who use them in a way that doesn't accidentally or intentionally kill people.

[Recursion]

165. But a given car is more likely to kill someone than a given gun

Cars are terribly dangerous tools. Although government regulations do mitigate some of that risk, they have not yet made cars as safe as guns.

[Usrename]

103. People would be required to buy liability insurance for their guns.

You are looking at the BOR exactly backwards, by the way. Someone should point that out to you.

It says nothing about any authority to regulate carriages, but it does speak to regulating people who bear arms. It's right there in black and white.

Everybody, including the most die-hard members of the pro-gun crowd, knows that we have to regulate weapons. People just tend to disagree about where to draw the line, that's all, not whether or not a line has to be drawn.

[AP]

110. ...

[jmg257]

115. "Regulate arms" in the Constitution? The Militia is to be well-trained, but otherwise?

The Congress can certainly mandate what arms we must supply ourselves for Militia duty, but for personal use - "shall not be infringed" covers it pretty well.

[Usrename]

118. I don't think it speaks to how they are trained. Just regulated.

So everyone should be free to build their own nuclear weapon? There must be a line drawn somewhere, right?

[jmg257]

120. You're mistaken."Well regulated" = well armed/trained. Military exercises/evolutions often enough..

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

Hamilton Fed #29


Congress was given the power to pass general guidelines as to how the people will arm themselves for Militia service, how they would be disciplined (trained) and organized (unit breakdown etc.).

[Usrename]

127. No, you are mistaken, well armed/trained = well armed/ trained

well regulated = well regulated

[jmg257]

130. Exactly, and well regulated means well functioning = most effective. The whole idea to limit the

need for a large Standing Army. Well regulated, as Hamilton describes, is best accomplished through training, and common standards of training & organization, standard & effective arms, etc., which is why the powers to come up with those standards were given to the feds. Luckily, the framers were REALLY smart, and saw how a usurption of that power could be used by tyrants to disarm the people. The Militia and our role in the Militia is so important (necessary for freedom), that it is a primary reason why the right to arms was explicitly secured for the people; like all the private rights enumerated in the BoR (and those which aren't) - to protect our rights from a tyrannical govt and from an overbearing majority.

You can keep parsing words to try to limit our unalienable rights, but you won't change the facts.

[Usrename]

156. Hehe.

Accuse me of parsing words, eh?

Why don't you have an unalienable right to build your own nuke?

Parse away there all you want.

You're funny!

[jmg257]

157. Who says I don't? Either way it probably won't be secured by the 2nd. "Arms" certainly includes

small arms and accoutrements the people would/could readily supply themselves with for personal use, self-defense, law enforcement, and the common defense - including but not limited to rifles, pistols, swords, bayonets, ammo, magazines, knives, etc., and of course especially "military arms in common use" for their role in the Militias. Your right to arms of this manner is absolute.

For militia duty - larger weapons were usually reserved to the states to supply & keep; usually - but not always - I am sure if you could pitch in with a few cannon, they would gladly make use of them and place them/you in the artillary units. Plenty of private citizens had ships with cannon and the like on them. Although the intent was for the people and the Militias of the several States to always be able to "out-gun" any federal armies, "rights" to things like Nukes are much less clear, and so decidedly reasonable to be left open to regulation.

You really have to read more - this stuff isn't so hard. Lay off the anti-gun nut myths of the '90s - even the Brady bunch has gotten past ignorance (feigned or otherwise) over what terms like "well regulated" and "arms" mean - they are even admitting of what the Militia was and who "the people" are. Now they only parse words (lie) over "keep and bear" & intent to limit rights. I recommend you start with the Constitution & the BoR, then the Militia Act of 1792. If you are STILL confused, then try the early debates in Congress, the ratifying committees, the federalist and anti-federalist papers, etc.

[Usrename]

161. Why do you persist with all the double-talk? Why continue?

The Congress can certainly mandate what arms we must supply ourselves for Militia duty, but for personal use - "shall not be infringed" covers it pretty well.

Although the intent was for the people and the Militias of the several States to always be able to "out-gun" any federal armies, "rights" to things like Nukes are much less clear, and so decidedly reasonable to be left open to regulation.

It's only unclear to you, not me. Maybe you should read more books.

[jmg257]

162. Because you refuse to learn. You need to drop the comic books, pick up the history books. Then we

may be able to have an intelligent discussion; otherwise you are just as you sound - another ignorant fool relying on outdated anti-gun propaganda & their parsing of the constitution to try to LIMIT our unalienable rights.

Not wise of you to keep ignoring the very words of the framers who formed this government. OR to remain ignorant of their brilliant intents in securing our liberties.

You sound like you enjoy & welcome infringments of your rights, but I take them seriously.

[Usrename]

164. Which unalienable right is that, exactly? The right to build a nuke?

You can't even see that you are in an argument with yourself, not me, because I have not even expressed any opinion on this subject, either pro-gun or anti-gun. You really don't see it, do you?

I made a couple of observations, that's all, which you don't even try to dispute, because they are both undeniably true.

1. If we treat guns like cars people will be required to get liability insurance for their guns (you never dispute this).

2. Nobody believes that we shouldn't prohibit private ownership of some types of arms, nobody believes that, neither the pro-gun or anti-gun people, they just disagree on where the line should be drawn (you never dispute this either).

You are having an argument with yourself over your own beliefs. You don't disagree with any opinion that I have expressed on this subject, because I have not expressed one.

Only an ignorant fool would not realize that your argument isn't with anything I said. It's with your own words.

Maybe you could improve yourself if you started with comic books and then worked your way up.

In the meantime, feel free to continue arguing with yourself. It is more than a little bit entertaining.

[jmg257]

168. It all stems from YOUR inability to understand "well regulated". After that mistake, the Nuke thing

is just more typical anti-gun BS that has little or nothing to do with the 2nd amendment (as I so wisely pointed out), yet is supposedly some sort of compelling argument as to why we need to have those rights that ARE secured infringed & regulated.

You are right about this though, no need to continue this sub-thead on the specifics of the 2nd.

Just to be clear, we are agreed, that the 2nd has NOTHING to do with allowing regulation of arms, and actually guards against it ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed")...

Hamilton:
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"


The only clause in the constitution that does allow Congress to provide some guidlines on arms is their Militia power - they are supposed to set standards as to what arms the people must supply themselves with for service in the Militia of the several States, in order to ensure we have the most effective militia possible. Besides that though, please see the 2nd's restrictive clause.

[jmg257]

169. Now...let's see..."gun insurance". I would dispute this. 1) Why should we treat guns like cars?

MV accident-related deaths: 43,667
Gun accident-related deaths: 789
CDC/WISQARS 2005

And why not let those who actually misuse guns take the responsibility for their actions? If I get in a crash and it is my fault, I would expect to be responsible for damages - via insurance typically. Until I use my gun illegally or carelessly, I should expect to pay nothing.

2. Nobody believes that we shouldn't prohibit private ownership of some types of arms, nobody believes that, neither the pro-gun or anti-gun people, they just disagree on where the line should be drawn (you never dispute this either).

I would dispute this too. Understanding what "arms" ARE secured (as explained above), and knowing the intent of the framers, the people should be allowed those small arms most effective for defense of themselves, enforcing the laws, and the common defense.
Now, if your "line is drawn" on the people's side, then you are right, and I agree. If it isn't, because it's location has no basis on the securities or intent of the Constitution, then it is ill-advised and I would not agree.


My problem lies with giving those in power the ability to arbitrarily(sp?) declare what small arms are unworthy, or what people are unworthy. Especially when those arms are exactly the type they gladly give to agents of the state - the police and the military, yet deny we, the people. That gives those in power the ability to destroy the constitution (by disarming the people), and the ability to destroy our liberties. It is well accepted that due process MUST be involved when the suspension or infringements of rights is at stake, not some "feel good" regulation that helps no one but the criminal and the tyrant.

[Usrename]

173. You're just frothing now. It doesn't even begin to make sense.

There is a distinction between people and arms, and also a distiction to be made about what should be regulated.

There are also distinctions that can be made between different classes of weapons. Why do you think only some weapons are arms, while other weapons are not arms?

I don't think that particular argument is true, or that it even make sense to you. If it does, then please clarify which weapons are the arms and which weapons are not the arms, and also try to explain how you came up with this idea.

Who is responsible for the auto insurance? The owner of the car, that's who. At least in most states. Simple.

How do we know the owner of the car? Oh yeah, it's registed to the owner before it can be legally taken onto a public place.

[jmg257]

176. OK. I will sum it up for you, again...

We the people have the right to keep and bear arms. That right to arms is secured explicilty via the 2nd amendment, and also via the 9th & 10th amendments, and because Congress was given NO power to regulate them.

A primary reason (but not the only reason) for explicitly securing that right is because of our very important role in the Militias. Congress was given certain powers with regards to the Militias and the ratifiers feared a usurption of that power could be used to DISarm the people. The role of the Militias (suppress insurrections, enforce the laws, repel invasions) is paramount in the Constitution – as the liberty of the people depends on it – the well-functioning Militias are “necessary for the security of a free State” (the recourse being a Standing Army). So, for our role in the Militias, access/use/possession of a class of arms is secured by the 2nd, those arms secured are personal "military arms in common use" - those arms a person could/would supply & keep & bear himself; and thanks to Congress, should meet some standard of functionality and caliber.

Back in the days they were muskets, rifles, swords, pistols, knives, tomahawks, bayonets, etc. plus ammo & accoutrements. Today they are guns like the M40A1, the M16, M4, M14 - probably any select-fire firearm using the 5.56 or 7.62 NATO rounds would be fine, plus pistols like the M9 & M1911, along with knives, bayonets, magazines, ammo etc. We KNOW this because the Congress wrote a Militia Act soon after the Constitution was ratified that showed EXACTLY what was intended – it is here that they 1st set down the guidelines for the Militias of the several States, as enumerated in the Constitution. {to provide for organizing, arming & disciplining the militias).

from the Militia Act of 1792:

“That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…”

“That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service…”

“and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound;”

"The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols...Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols"



OK, so besides our crucial Militia duties, we also have the personal private right to arms, again explicitly secured by the 2nd, because it is one of, or is, the best means to the natural right of self-defense, and because we also have right to own & use property. We have this unalienable right regardless of our role in the Militia. Because this right to arms cannot be infringed, and because the right is private, those personal arms we are entitled to include, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, those proscribed by Congress above. Again, personal arms applicable to effective self-defense, etc.. So a larger group of personal arms is secured for OUR use in self-defense, leisure activities like hunting, collecting, all other lawful purposes, etc.



The reason it becomes a little muddy, is because it IS the intent of the Constitution that the PEOPLE be responsible for the common defense (as well as their own), so WE could always "out-gun" that bane of liberty, a Standing Army - and so have the best protection against that favorite force of a tryrant. The standing army these days is so huge and of course possesses nukes, jetfighters, etc., and it would be hard to justify private ownership of such ordnance. However, this has little to do with the intent of securing our right to personal arms as mandated in the 2nd.

[jmg257]

179. Right. But registration of guns leads to confiscation - a clear infringement of the 2nd amendment.

And insurance is there because there is HUGE possibility that cars will be involved in an accident. There are VERY little odds (about .0003%) that a gun will be used to accidentally hurt someone. If you intentionally misuse it, then you take responsibility for it - period. No group insurance necessary.


Clearly there is a distinction between arms and people. Arms are inanimate objects which people have the right to possess. The right to possess those arms is secured from infringement. Those arms which we have a right to possess include ATLEAST "military arms in common use". (as explained above)

[Usrename]

183. Thanks for trying to clear that up, but I still don't understand.

Aren't you just saying the following:

1. Our absolute right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

2. We don't have any right to bear certain arms because they are just too dangerous.

Those two statements seem to be contradictory. As a matter of fact, they are so contradictory that you must produce two different definitions of what arms are, depending on whether you are trying to satisfy statement 1 or statement 2, in order to make this type of argument.

Statement 2, by the way, is the same observation that I have been making. The only disagreement, as I keep trying to point out, is that people have differing opinions on which weapons are acceptable and which are too dangerous. No matter how complicated you want to try and make this, it still isn't rocket science.

We don't have any unabridged right to posses any weapons that we want. We just don't. And no rational person thinks that we do.

[jmg257]

184. Whew! OK - I think I agree - mostly! We do not have a right to possess any WEAPON we want. We DO

have the right to possess, at the least, just about any current "personal" firearm we want (plus knives swords etc.), as those are what clearly constituted "arms" as mentioned in the 2nd, and clearly meet the intent of the amendment and the Constitution.

And I also agree that there are differing opinions on what weapons are acceptable. I am pretty comfortable, that in keeping with the Constitution possession of most personal arms are secured (as clarified above).

A good debate could be had however, knowing the intent of the framers, about the people having crew-size and larger weapons for militia use - but these were typically referred to separately from "arms" (as clearly used in the 2nd). Typically the states would supply such ordinance, not the people. So whether they are secured or not IS up to discussion, and so more reasonably subject to regulation.

[Usrename]

185. I know a lot people who want to argue for exactly that.

They are not so much interested in hand-held missiles as they are in getting their hands on those shotguns with the huge magazines.

Evidently, and some of these folks should know, the weapon of choice if anarchy or martial law breaks out is one of those shotguns with a very large magazine. It's what most of these people say they would want to keep handy. And I guess it does make some sense. But that's the reason why they aren't legal. Because they are too effective.

But nobody seems to want their own personal stash of anthrax or Sarin. The fact that anybody would want it, even if wasn't illegal, should be enough to disqualify them from getting it.

[krispos42]

196. The general line for "arms"

seems to be something that your average Joe could reasonably be expected to march with and use all by his lonesome. .30-caliber rifle, yes, 30mm cannon, no.

As a matter of public safety, there is also a line drawn between what I call 'discriminate' and 'indiscriminate' arms. Basically, things that have a "kill zone", like a grenade, artillery shell, mine, etc., are indiscriminate in their destruction. You can't aim them at specific person and not also be capable of taking out others. Automatic weapons also fall into this catatory, as do NBCR weapons.

Discriminate weapons are those that only fire once per trigger pull, and thus can be aimed at a particular person or target.

Indiscriminate weapons can be bought and sold legally, but they are expensive. Special permits and checks and such.

[index555]

193. I imagine that the liability insurance on my private nuke

would be pretty outrageous.
"hey I'll only use it if a government threatens me".

[Usrename]

194. If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

:evilgrin:

[index555]

192. what about my death ray?

[NickB79]

88. When used on private land, the government has no regulations over vehicles

No need to license them, insure them, have safety features activated, etc. My dad can drive an old beater Ford or Chevy truck around his farm without any input from the government.

Wouldn't advocating the same thing for guns basically mean my dad could own and shoot any machine gun he wished so long as he stayed on the farm while doing it?

[AP]

96. That old beater when it was built had to conform to NHTSA regulations.

So, without tormenting this analogy, I wouldn't have a problem with people having guns in a private space, assuming they were originally built to be as safe as possible.

And I think Americans have a lot of ingenuity, and I'd like to hear some great ideas for how guns could be designed to be safe. So lets get back to the analogy -- when car designs were resulting in a lot of fatalities, NHTSA and Detroit got very innovative about safety, and cars got safer. Why can't we do the same with guns? Where's the innovation?

[krispos42]

172. They are built as safe as possible

Guns have to contain a high-pressure explosion tens of thousands a time.

Past that, what do you want? What is the firearm analogue to seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones? Guns have safeties, and modern guns have such things as decocking levers (no more pulling the trigger while lowering the hammer with your thumbs), safeties that disable the firing pin, and tranfer-bar firing systems so accidental drops don't set off a cartridge. Some also have magazine disconnects so they don't fire when the mag is out. Many newer guns have loaded-chamber indicators.

Any reasonably modern gun is safe. It will only go off with the safeties disengaged and the trigger pulled!

The cause of nearly all of the accidents is usually "I thought it was unloaded", which is operator error/stupidity, not a design flaw or mechanical failure. Yeah, a few might be cause my worn-out parts not working properly, or not being familiar with the controls, but most genuine accidents are people not realizing the gun was loaded. This is especially true with auto-loading pistols, where you can remove the magazine from the gun but still have a round in the firing chamber.

[AP]

105. OK -- thinking about this some more. Let's INNOVATE!

Think of some ways to make guns safer.

Here's one: every gun has to be built in a way that imbeds a chip so that the gun can be located by GPS or whatever if the police are looking for it -- kind of like On Star, or whatever that anti-theft thing they put in cars. Also, bullets shot from the gun are imprinted with a code that matches the one in the gun.

Wouldn't that be cool? Criminals would always have to ditch a gun if they used it in crime, but you'd always be able to find the gun, and track it backwards. And if a criminal didn't ditch it, you'd always find the criminal.

How about, guns need keys. I see the new Prius has key that you don't have to put in the ignition. You walk up to the car, and it unlocks.

Ok. Guns come with bracelets or rings. The gun can only be shot by the person wearing that bracelet or ring. No more kids finding their parents gun and shooting their little sisters, unless their parent's bracelet or ring happens to be within a half an inch of the gun.

[Pavulon]

107. Kinda like serial number.

no one ever defeated that. No criminal would EVER figure out how to beat that system.

Why not apply the same logic to 5 gallon buckets and grapes. They kill people too..

[AP]

108. Let's innovate: design the gun so that you'd break it if you tried to remove the device

that imbeds the serial number.

Doesn't lojack do something like that?

If we can put a man on the moon...

Why chose stupidity when innovation can save lives and keep guns in the hands of people who want to use them lawfullly?

[Pavulon]

109. Why not do what the swiss do

which is not regulate firearms to a stupid level and address the social and cultural issues that cause violence. I mean lets make a knife that knows if it is stabbing a steak or a person.

Did you hear the guys brother who killed those people JUSTIFY it. His mindset leads to MURDER. He had no problem with his brother waging WAR over what ever batshit insane thing he was using to justify murder.

You can not regulate that problem.

[AP]

112. Why not innovate when you see that there's a problem?

Do you think there isn't a problem?

Don't you think that there'd be some very simple ways to prevent a lot of misery?

I know people who have been shot.

I think that there is technology that would cost less than 10% to the price of gun that would prevent a lot of misery.

[Pavulon]

114. Fixing the problem would

be a real approach. People willing to murder you are not very concerned with with gun laws or if they rolled through the stop sign after killing you.

Cultural problem. Address the root cause, tail chasing behavior is not rational.

[Irreverend IX]

125. Some things just aren't possible.

Can we put a man on the moon? Yes. Can we stop kids from finding porn online? No. Guns are mechanical devices that operate under tremendous physical stresses. Adding electronics to such a device is impractical, especially in a way that would break the gun if the electronic component was removed or disabled. Also note that there are already 200+ million guns owned by US civilians without electronic locks or tracking devices, and if universal electronic tracking was mandated it would take a very long time for all non-trackable guns to leave criminal hands.

The US, the most powerful nation on earth, has devoted billions and billions of dollars and the work of some of its most brilliant minds to try and stop people from using drugs. The result? Any kid in junior high can buy a bag of weed. Prohibition doesn't work. The only way to eliminate gun crime will be to get rid of people's motivation to commit it, and legalizing drugs would be a huge stride towards that goal.

[Pavulon]

126. Bingo.(nt)

[AP]

155. i have more faith in the power of innovation.

[krispos42]

180. Technology is not there yet

"microstamping", a scheme recently passed by the California Assembly as mandatory in a couple of years, doesn't work. It stamps a unique serial number on the brass casing each time the gun is fired.

First off, the serial number wears off quickly.

Second, it doesn't apply to revolvers.

Third, it can be easily defeated with the common file or sandpaper.

Fourth, new firing pins can be bought and replaced easily by the owner. It's a part subject to wear and replacement like other moving parts.

Fifth, used brass cases with the microstamping on them can be taken from shooting ranges and used to plant false, misleading, or confusing evidence at a crime scene.



Nealy all guns sold nowadays come with either an internal, key-activated lock, an external lock like a cable lock, or in a lockable case.


GPSs need battery power to work, and need more battery power to be able to transmit to some sort of receiver. Because a gun is not electric, but mechanical, any battery can be removed without affecting the functioning of the gun. Same story for ID rings or bracelets.

And nobody that buys a gun to defend themselves are going to buy one that might not work because of a dead battery.

[sellitman]

81. Ban them all.

100%

Flame on.

[Pavulon]

82. I think dope is banned..

I mean I never met anyone who could find dope.

[sellitman]

159. Hope you had your fun

You are now on ignore.

[Dimensio0]

98. Please explain...

...how such a ban will be implemented and enforced. Be specific.

[sellitman]

151. Outlaw them.

Turn them all in and build a nice cozy bonfire. Melt them all down and make lawn statues. Remove all guns from this country.

[Dimensio0]

152. Please elaborate...

How would people "turn them all in"? How would compensation be arranged for the owners of the confiscated property? What of people who refuse to turn over their guns? What do you believe that such an effort would accomplish, and please provide evidence for any assertions regarding outcomes.

[sellitman]

158. Compensation can come from the decrease in crime, deaths and the costs related to it all.

The cost savings to the economy would be staggering.

[Dimensio0]

181. You did not answer my inquiry.

Even if "decrease in crime, deaths and costs" were valid compensation for the confiscation of privately owned property, you have not demonstrated that such a result will occur as a result of confiscation. Moreover, that alone is not sufficient; you will need to find a means to financially compensate people whose currently legally owned property you advocate confiscating by government fiat.

[jmg257]

182. Because that worked so well when they banned alcohol. Of course back in the REAL world,

the (now illegal) use of alcohol INCREASED, as did the criminal element, the crime rates and violent crime rates associated with it. Also gave birth to organized crime as we know it (and of course the Kennedy fortune - go Joe Rumrunner!).

And "the right to keep and drink alcohol" didn't even make it into the Constitution!

[krispos42]

195. Funny, that's how the Bush administration justifies Gitmo

and destroying habeas corpus and no warrants and no trials and torture.

[NickB79]

198. Discounting the death toll from the martial-law police force kicking in doors

To confiscate the guns nationwide.

Fun.

[Pavulon]

153. Can you bring me some weed to that party

oh shit , I forgot we banned it. Now no one can get weed, ever. (except from a vending machine here and there)...

Start with removing poverty.

[NeedleCast]

104. Watch Democrats Lose

Push this issue...

[billbuckhead]

122. This polls been up awhile and the pro gun regulation side is winning!

I thought that wasn't supposed to be possible on DU?

[Pavulon]

123. You have a tie..(nt)

[B Calm]

139. I think your wrong. Look at the poll again..

[baldguy]

124. A community could have the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

As long as a person can legally cross an imaginary line drawn on a map to avoid them, they'll be useless.

Every gun should be registered & every gun owner should be licensed & insured.

[aikoaiko]

128. Just an observation -- equal again.

I consider the second and third options to constitute the "NO" answer to the OP's question "Are America's gun laws too lenient? Yes or No?". Of course the first option is the "YES" answer.

Throughout the day it appears that the YESs and NOs have been about equal which was also the response we got when someone asked if each of us owned a gun. I wonder if the responses map on to each other or are they orthogonal?

[Jamastiene]

140. Ah, yes, this is going to be pure gold.

Just the thread I was waiting for.

:popcorn:

[fascisthunter]

141. By Reading This Poll I Would Say Most Duers Believe in Regulation of Guns

Thank God or whatever you believe or don't believe in....

[Pavulon]

143. Regulation is good...Bans bad..

Common sense regulation, background checks, enhanced sentencing for offenders are great.

Additional rules should be oriented towards sentencing and cultural issues.

[B Calm]

145. By Reading this poll I would say most Duers believe in Personal Freedom

and the liberal idea to own a gun!

[fascisthunter]

148. They Believe in Regulating Your Personal Freedom to Own a Gun

and I do too....! Because with freedoms you have responsibility to your communities, and when your freedom endangers that community, they have a right to democratically regulate it. Welcome to America.

PS - I'm a liberal who feels freer without owning a gun. I have no desire to own one to feel secure, nor do need one to hunt, since I don't hunt. Maybe someday I'll go to a shooting range because I want to, but not feel a NEED to. Without that need I feel freer.

[Lex Talionis]

154. Ok I get your sig now...

Your not a fascist who hunts. Your a hunter of fascist. Interesting. How would you keep your freedom if real fascist hunt you? Pay others to do it for you? How would you hunt a real fascist? I quoted it once and here it is again. An unarmed man is a subject, an armed man is a citizen. You feel free without having a gun, because others who have them protect you. Lets say, that real fascist are running the country. Do you really want to be unarmed? Not me.

[Hippo_Tron]

146. I think that guns should not be sold at Wal-Mart

Because I think that it enforces that idea that guns are no big deal and that they are just something you walk into a store and buy. And that's not really an attitude I think we should have about firearms.

[Pavulon]

149. I should be able to walk in and

pass an instant background check verifying I comply with all regulations and laws and show validated ID and purchase a weapon (or palette of weapons if I so choose).

Walmart sells name brand rifles and shotguns here. I have not seen a handguns on sale at any place other than gun store in many years.

[Edweird]

150. There was a time when guns were available thru mail order.

Buying guns in a a store really ISN'T a big deal.

[Recursion]

166. I hate Wal~Mart myself, but why shouldn't they sell guns?

I mean, I'd love to see that whole chain plowed under and the earth salted above the rubble, but why shouldn't they be able to sell guns?

Because I think that it enforces that idea that guns are no big deal and that they are just something you walk into a store and buy.

See, I think the extent to which most of suburban America is ignorant of and irrationally fearful of guns is a bad thing.

[krispos42]

170. Unfortunately, that attitude...

Turns guns into a cult/fetish item. Which attracts people to them for all the wrong reasons, especially with urban and suburban kids who don't grow up where guns are used as tools.

Owning a gun is not a big deal. A big responsibility, yes, but not a big deal.

It's like abstinance-only education. Not only does it enhance the mysteries of sex and the desire to perform the act, it makes it more likely you're going to do it wrong and make a major mistake.

[LanternWaste]

167. United States is the most armed country in the world...

"By any measure the United States is the most armed country in the world," it said. "With roughly 83 to 96 guns per 100 people, the United States is approaching a statistical level of one gun per person."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2834893820070828

*****************************************************************************************



If the above is indeed the case, it appears to me that less regulation is unnecessary, as it seems that anyone who wants a firearm can readily get one (or two, or three...)

[cgrindley]

197. I take it that the people voting yes don't have CCW permits

because as someone who does, getting one in my state was pretty damn difficult.