CDZ Gun Control

[Wry Catcher]

Raise the age that young men can buy a gun to the age of 30.

Who does the most mass shootings?
Who acts as straw buyers for criminals?
Who has young children?
Who has to much testoserone for theirs and others own good?

Young men under 30.
They can shoot, hunt, what ever, they just wouldnt be able to purchase a weapon till they were 30.

Cops and soldiers excluded.

Does the 2nd guarantee you an AGE at which you can purchase guns? No, it doesnt.

The 2nd states quite clearly that the right to a gun shall not be infringed. This covers all Americans regardless of age.

One must conclude that your view of the 2nd allows a 12 year old, in tears because he got a bad grade, to buy a gun - no questions asked.

This is not a straw man, it's a fact based on your post.

If there are no restrictions, and that is what 'shall not be infringed' means to you, then it is a factual statement of what might occur. Other obvious scenarios can be proffered, with adults, drunk and sober, angry or resolved.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

 

[eagle1462010]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

 

[Wry Catcher]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

 

[eagle1462010]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

 

[eagle1462010]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

It is the first step to banning them.............In order to collect the guns you need to know who owns them. It has happened in other countries like Canada.........They had nothing to fear.............the LEFT would NEVER EVER BAN GUNS................So they registered them..........Ban passed and so they knew who to take the guns from..................

That is your ULTIMATE GOAL.............stop dancing.

 

[westwall]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Because once a license is needed the rich can price them to the point that only the rich and the criminals will have them. The criminals will of course enjoy the free range chickens they get to prey on and the rich, well, it is the rich pushing gun control isn't it.

How else can they truly enslave you. So long as you are armed they can't truly oppress you. Once they can get the guns away from the masses though, well then all bets are off aren't they.

I would think that those who claim to be against the one percenters could figure out that it is the one percenters who are working like hell to disarm them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun laws have never reduced crime. Ever. They only criminalize the innocent. By all means punish the hell out of the criminal misuse of guns, but merely banning does nothing to reduce crime. Never has, never will.

What evidence do you have to prove gun laws have never prevented crime? Even if you cherry pick an example or two, consider how many rapes, robberies or run of the mill petty thefts have been prevented because there are laws against them?

None? One? a score? more? But, do we toss away the penal code based on your logic? Or do we do the best we can to prevent rape, robbery, theft and mass murder by firearm?

 

[westwall]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun laws have never reduced crime. Ever. They only criminalize the innocent. By all means punish the hell out of the criminal misuse of guns, but merely banning does nothing to reduce crime. Never has, never will.

What evidence do you have to prove gun laws have never prevented crime? Even if you cherry pick an example or two, consider how many rapes, robberies or run of the mill petty thefts have been prevented because there are laws against them?

None? One? a score? more? But, do we toss away the penal code based on your logic? Or do we do the best we can to prevent rape, robbery, theft and mass murder by firearm?

What evidence do you have that gun laws reduce crime. You are making the assertion thus it is YOU who must support your claim.

 

[jasonnfree]

The gun grabbers know they can't get rid of guns in one fell swoop. Each time there is a shooting incident, the feinsteins, schumers and clintons will be screaming for more gun laws until we'll be like france or england.

 

[2aguy]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Then you also support a fee for voting...right? Since requiring a fee for the exercise of a right, voting, was deemed unconstitutional when the democrats were doing it to blacks.

Any fee that prevents people from exercising a Right is an attack on that right....

And again...what is the purpose to licensing exactly...you guys never explain the need to do it.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Yes. If you commit a crime with a gun you are arrested and sent to prison....if you use a gun to commit a crime you get 20 years.

If you use a magazine with more than 10 rounds you get an additional 10 years.

If you are a felon caught in possession of a gun you get 20 years.

If you are a felon caught in possession of a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you get 10 years.


There...problem solved.

And looky there....you don't have to license gun owners, register guns or use pointless universal background checks.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Because once a license is needed the rich can price them to the point that only the rich and the criminals will have them. The criminals will of course enjoy the free range chickens they get to prey on and the rich, well, it is the rich pushing gun control isn't it.

How else can they truly enslave you. So long as you are armed they can't truly oppress you. Once they can get the guns away from the masses though, well then all bets are off aren't they.

I would think that those who claim to be against the one percenters could figure out that it is the one percenters who are working like hell to disarm them.

I think this post ^^^ is the work of a paranoid. But I digress. Consider my posts, wherein I've suggested licensing be done by the States, or those states which require them, and that the license be easy to get with a comprehensive background investigation.

Of course a license could be suspended or revoked for good cause, cause defined by a state legislature, and heard by an administrative law judge whose finding could result with an acqauital, a suspension for a period of time, or a lifetime revocation.

Fines, and other punishments, would become part of the Penal Code as enacted by the state legislature and the governor.

 

[2aguy]

Reasonable gun control that wont restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens and actually help something?
Does that exist?

Never does. All these laws do is make it harder for people like me to get a gun. A criminal can get a gun in a matter of hours if they know the right people.

I suppose we won't know if measures to reduce the ease to buy, borrow or steal a gun is imposed. The opinion that nothing will work isn't convincing or even credible.

No.....we know what works...catching criminals with guns and putting them in jail....works when you actually do it.

No need to license law abiding gun owners, register the guns of law abiding gun owners or impose universal background checks on law abiding gun owners.....

See......one solution works....your ideas do nothing.

 

[westwall]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Because once a license is needed the rich can price them to the point that only the rich and the criminals will have them. The criminals will of course enjoy the free range chickens they get to prey on and the rich, well, it is the rich pushing gun control isn't it.

How else can they truly enslave you. So long as you are armed they can't truly oppress you. Once they can get the guns away from the masses though, well then all bets are off aren't they.

I would think that those who claim to be against the one percenters could figure out that it is the one percenters who are working like hell to disarm them.

I think this post ^^^ is the work of a paranoid. But I digress. Consider my posts, wherein I've suggested licensing be done by the States, or those states which require them, and that the license be easy to get with a comprehensive background investigation.

Of course a license could be suspended or revoked for good cause, cause defined by a state legislature, and heard by an administrative law judge whose finding could result with an acqauital, a suspension for a period of time, or a lifetime revocation.

Fines, and other punishments, would become part of the Penal Code as enacted by the state legislature and the governor.

Violating the rules of the CDZ there sport, though I will give you a pass as it's me and I don't care what you spew. It is a fact that the rich are pushing gun control. Do you know what facts are? It is also a fact that the Occupy Movement (those that haven't been bought by Soros ((who is likewise a big gun control advocate)) are virulently anti corporate and anti wealthy people.

And once again you seem to not understand how the laws of this land are passed. Rich people buy their local government bureaucrat or politician. Ply them with gifts and then ask them for a favor. The favor is a law to be passed that will benefit the briber er buyer of the politician.

It's worked like that from time immemorial. The Founders of this country realized that that is how governments work, and more importantly they also knew beyond doubt that when that happens the poor people suffer. That's why they made it as difficult as possible for your masters to take this country over.

But hey, if you don't like the way things are done here I suggest you move to a country more to your liking. Almost all the other countries out there are like what you want so move there. Leave this experiment in government alone.

 

[2aguy]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Because once a license is needed the rich can price them to the point that only the rich and the criminals will have them. The criminals will of course enjoy the free range chickens they get to prey on and the rich, well, it is the rich pushing gun control isn't it.

How else can they truly enslave you. So long as you are armed they can't truly oppress you. Once they can get the guns away from the masses though, well then all bets are off aren't they.

I would think that those who claim to be against the one percenters could figure out that it is the one percenters who are working like hell to disarm them.

I think this post ^^^ is the work of a paranoid. But I digress. Consider my posts, wherein I've suggested licensing be done by the States, or those states which require them, and that the license be easy to get with a comprehensive background investigation.

Of course a license could be suspended or revoked for good cause, cause defined by a state legislature, and heard by an administrative law judge whose finding could result with an acqauital, a suspension for a period of time, or a lifetime revocation.

Fines, and other punishments, would become part of the Penal Code as enacted by the state legislature and the governor.

What is your obsession with licensing people who do not commit crimes......because all you do is then make it possible to turn them into felons if they forget to file the paper work......and have committed no actual crime with the gun.

Licensing does not stop criminals..who will not get them...and it does not stop mass shooters who will get them if they decide to...and then they will shoot people...or they won't get the license, and then they will still shoot people....

There is no need to license law abiding gun owners...here is an exercise to show you why your idea is unnecessary and pointless.

--Law abiding citizen owns and carries a gun, does not have a license, does not commit a crime. There is no need for them to have a license.

--A criminal...who cannot own or carry a gun, and who cannot get a gun licesne carries a gun and commits crimes with that gun....licensing the law abiding citizen who owns a gun did nothing to stop this.

Law abiding citizen decides to commit a crime with a gun....he has does not have a license because he was formerly a law abiding citizen....he is captured by police, tried and found guilty and can no longer own or carry a gun...so he did not require a license before he commited the crime and cannot get a license after committing a crime...

Are you beginning to see why your licensing scheme is foolish....


A mass shooter is planning a shooting in a gun free zone...he guys a gun and gets his license for it....he goes to the gun free zone and shoots people who don't have guns because they obeyed the gun free zone law....

A mass shooter is planning a shooting in a gun free zone, he gets his gun but doesn't get a license....he goes to the gun free zone and shoots people who don't have guns because they obeyed the gun free zone law....

Again....are you beginning to see why your licensing scheme is foolish and pointless..

 

[2aguy]

I think the only gun control that would actually work is a world wide gun ban. No more making them/ammo and door to door searches.
Untill then, illegal guns (the main problem) would still be a problem.
No govt guns
No secret service with guns
No law abiding citizens with guns
No criminals with guns
Then, we could start to work on outlawing katanas and fertilizer.
Anything else is a FOOLS PARTY

The problem...we already had a period of time with a world wide ban on guns...because guns did not in fact exist....how did that look.......the weak were raped, murdered and made slaves to the strong.......all across the world........

So the advent of guns freed the weak from the strong.....that is why they want to get rid of guns...it ruins their dominance....

 

[2aguy]

Raise the age that young men can buy a gun to the age of 30.

Who does the most mass shootings?
Who acts as straw buyers for criminals?
Who has young children?
Who has to much testoserone for theirs and others own good?

Young men under 30.
They can shoot, hunt, what ever, they just wouldnt be able to purchase a weapon till they were 30.

Cops and soldiers excluded.

Does the 2nd guarantee you an AGE at which you can purchase guns? No, it doesnt.

yes....the cops and soldiers of 1930s Germany appreciate your support...the 12 million people they murdered in gas chambers, innocent men, women and children...yes, children....do not agree with you....

And exactly who is sellling guns to 15 year old gang bangers....? Are they getting their guns legally?

Nothing you propose will stop one criminal or mass shooter from getting a gun.

 

[eagle1462010]

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that "lost" them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn't. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.


Continue to read the DAILY KOS and exactly how they want to Ban Guns........

 

[2aguy]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

In some societies, the male weapon has a significance above and beyond its functional utility. To separate a Scot from his sporan and dirk or to pry an Arab's fingers off his khanjar is to provoke a fight to the death. Freudian theories about the phallic symbol aside, the weapon which symbolizes warrior status cannot be willingly surrendered no matter what the argument.

The Scots Irish immigrants who settled in Appalachia in the latter part of the 18th century came from a culture in which the claymore was a sacred badge of rank. The increasingly available and affordable handguns of the 19th century allowed an echo of knighthood to descend to the lowest levels of rural white society and the mystique, although fading, remains to this day across a large swath of semi-civilized America.

actually, that isn't true......Europe banned guns after WW1 and in the 1930s they murdered 12 million people.....if you average the deaths of those innocent men, women and children, yes children sent to gas chambers........their death rate far exceeds ours....

And Britain...after confiscating their guns...has the same gun murder rate now that they did before the confiscation....and for some reason they are now arming more of their regular police with guns...because of increased gun violence.....

Australia...their gun ownership rate is now at the same level it was before the confiscation........and their gun crime is beginning to go up.....

Our gun rate, after more Americans now own and carry guns.....is going down, not up.

So you are wrong.