Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Wry Catcher]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.

We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed; we penalize those who provide a firearm to an unlicensed person.

 

[M14 Shooter]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

 

[sealybobo]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Regulate better how gun manufacturers mass produce and flood the market with guns year after year after year.

Don't you have enough guns?

Make handguns more expensive. Semi automatics should cost $10,000.

Shotguns and hunting guns are OK.

They tax people differently on a second 3rd and 4th home. Make one gun cheap but the second one more expensive and they must be registered.

Make bullets really expensive. Lol

 

[sealybobo]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?

 

[kaz]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.

We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed; we penalize those who provide a firearm to an unlicensed person.

Right, again, you penalize law abiding citizens. Criminals just buy an illegal gun. Explain how you buy an illegal pass through a red light. Not a student of physics, are you?

So why doesn't your plan work for pot? Remember, that was the point of my OP post? We actually make pot outright illegal, we do all the things you suggest and more. Yet any zit faced 16 year old can buy all the pot they want.

Also, why doesn't your plan work for guns? We do all that now yet criminals have no problem getting guns? Why is it that more of a plan that doesn't work is going to work?

I anticipate your continued non-answer to these straight forward questions

 

[danielpalos]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?

merely capital under any form of capitalism.

 

[sealybobo]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?

merely capital under any form of capitalism.

Huh? Is that really your reply to my question? I'll consider that a win. I stumped your ******* ass. Answer the question! I'll answer for you fuctard. Criminals don't get their hands on rpg's because Smith and Wesson don't mass produce them so they never make it onto the black market.

I work for a manufacturer. Sometimes it takes 3 weeks to get a part. Serial numbers are used so we know exactly who has what. Guns are much more dangerous yet we are loosy goosey about them? Smith and Wesson love it this way. The NRA and gun nuts. Americans are insane!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Regulate better how gun manufacturers mass produce and flood the market with guns year after year after year.

They sell these guns to governments and law abiding citizens -- how does reducing the numbers of guns sold to governments and law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from getting guns?

Make handguns more expensive. Semi automatics should cost $10,000.

As should abortions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?

Unsurprisingly, you dd not address my questions.

 

[kaz]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?

merely capital under any form of capitalism.

Black market capitalism works fine for them. They get the guns

 

[kaz]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Regulate better how gun manufacturers mass produce and flood the market with guns year after year after year.

They sell these guns to governments and law abiding citizens -- how does reducing the numbers of guns sold to governments and law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from getting guns?

Make handguns more expensive. Semi automatics should cost $10,000.

As should abortions.

Exactly, exposing another blatant hypocrisy of the left. Making abortions cost $10K is actually more Constitutional than making guns cost that since guns are actually Constitutionally protected

 

[danielpalos]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?

merely capital under any form of capitalism.

Huh? Is that really your reply to my question? I'll consider that a win. I stumped your ******* ass. Answer the question! I'll answer for you fuctard. Criminals don't get their hands on rpg's because Smith and Wesson don't mass produce them so they never make it onto the black market.

I work for a manufacturer. Sometimes it takes 3 weeks to get a part. Serial numbers are used so we know exactly who has what. Guns are much more dangerous yet we are loosy goosey about them? Smith and Wesson love it this way. The NRA and gun nuts. Americans are insane!

not at all; the laws of supply and demand work regardless of market depending on perceived need or want. only Bad capitalists don't know that

 

[kaz]

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?

merely capital under any form of capitalism.

Huh? Is that really your reply to my question? I'll consider that a win. I stumped your ******* ass. Answer the question! I'll answer for you fuctard. Criminals don't get their hands on rpg's because Smith and Wesson don't mass produce them so they never make it onto the black market.

I work for a manufacturer. Sometimes it takes 3 weeks to get a part. Serial numbers are used so we know exactly who has what. Guns are much more dangerous yet we are loosy goosey about them? Smith and Wesson love it this way. The NRA and gun nuts. Americans are insane!

not at all; the laws of supply and demand work regardless of market depending on perceived need or want. only Bad capitalists don't know that

Notice you started with "not at all," then you didn't contradict what I said

 

[Wry Catcher]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

 

[jon_berzerk]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

Arms, are weapons of war

yes the ones mentioned in the 2nd amendment

 

[kaz]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.

We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed; we penalize those who provide a firearm to an unlicensed person.

So Wry, maybe one time in all your posts on the thread you could address my actual point in the OP post. Pot is actually illegal in most of the country. It's against the law, period. Yet high schoolers, not even criminals can get all the pot they want.

How can gun laws possibly work? There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. Drugs travel easily across the border, guns can follow the same routes. When pot laws work to a degree they just drive up the prices and the drug lords work all the harder to get the money. And the pot buyers I am discussing are teens, not even criminals with criminal networks.

How can you possibly believe gun laws will work on criminals? So then, how can you not believe you are only restricting the rights of people to protect themselves from criminals? As evidenced by mass shootings one after another happen in ... gun ... free ... zones.

You keep mocking the right for denying what you believe is science with global warming, you mock the religious right for not believing in evolution. Yet you deny basic, obvious evidence with guns that all contradicts your argument. Whats up with that?

 

[jon_berzerk]

They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon,

a neat thing to think about

the 2nd amendment can be fiddled with and has limits and congress can make rules

in regards to the 2nd

but that cant happen with the 14th amendment

why is that

 

[kaz]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

 

[Wry Catcher]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.

We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed; we penalize those who provide a firearm to an unlicensed person.

So Wry, maybe one time in all your posts on the thread you could address my actual point in the OP post. Pot is actually illegal in most of the country. It's against the law, period. Yet high schoolers, not even criminals can get all the pot they want.

How can gun laws possibly work? There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. Drugs travel easily across the border, guns can follow the same routes. When pot laws work to a degree they just drive up the prices and the drug lords work all the harder to get the money. And the pot buyers I am discussing are teens, not even criminals with criminal networks.

How can you possibly believe gun laws will work on criminals? So then, how can you not believe you are only restricting the rights of people to protect themselves from criminals? As evidenced by mass shootings one after another happen in ... gun ... free ... zones.

You keep mocking the right for denying what you believe is science with global warming, you mock the religious right for not believing in abortion. Yet you deny basic, obvious evidence with guns that all contradicts your argument. Whats up with that?

1. The war on drugs is a failure. We are doing the same things today we have been doing for decades with few positive results. Thus your comparison has merit, IMO both drugs and guns need to be controlled, but how is the question.
2. Pot (MJ) must be dropped from schedule I and each state should have the right to regulate or outlaw it
3. Thus, each state could have the right to regulate gun ownership or allow any citizen of their state to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun. That would be a great test of the merits or demerits of universal gun ownership.
4. Climate Change is in effect, only a fool believes otherwise. That statement does not suggest that climate change is exclusively a product of human behavior. However, we see how the Internal Combustion Engine created SMOG and how the use of catalytic converters has mitigated that weather anomaly - our air is cleaner.
5. Abortion is about the right of women to make bodily decisions. Pregnancy can be mostly prevented by education (age appropriate in the public schools) and freely provided contraceptives. Pregnancy is also a means use by an abuser to control his spouse, a pregnant women will stay with an abuser when they have no means of support when pregnant and after she has given birth. Yet Planned Parenthood is under attack.
6. I mock the religious right for hypocrisy. Denial of contraceptives and opposition to abortion is oppressive and a tactic used by authoritarians. Few like the idea of abortion, but those opposed to abortion and oppose my points in #5 deserve to be mocked.

 

[Wry Catcher]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

That was then, this is now. Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.

I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts. I tend to think it would be.