Some people dislike gays, others dislike guns. We should not base our laws on personal dislikes.

[Remmah2]

http://pinkpistols.org/



"Some people dislike gays, others dislike guns. We should not base our laws on personal dislikes."

Pro 2A people need to take a lesson here on how to be proud and be out of the closet on 2A issues.

[Loudly]

1. NAMBLA and the KKK have their supporters too.

[Raster]

2. So you are equating Gays with NAMBLA and KKK???

How fucking offensive.

[glacierbay]

6. He also equated machinists to child pornographers

in another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=71265
Pretty vile comparison in my opinion.

[Remmah2]

8. It makes me wonder who/what the anti2A people really represent?

Once the 2A is neutered, what next?

[4th law of robotics]

22. I thought you were exaggerating

or perhaps he misspoke.

But nope, he said all that and defended it.

Wow.

[Loudly]

9. Wait, wait. I'm not done being offended by the OP.

Comparing sexual orientation to the means of convenient murder.

[glacierbay]

10. Kinda like comparing skilled machinists to child pornographers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=71265

[Loudly]

19. Unwholesome machining and unwholesome photography.

Bad for society.

[4th law of robotics]

23. The reason CP is banned is that there is no way it can be produced

without harming a child.

Whereas you can produce guns without harming any children. In fact if you do harm anyone in the process you are doing it horribly wrong.

So your analogy fails.

[Loudly]

29. Producing guns and ammunition guarantees that children will be harmed.

It's impossible to claim otherwise.

Iron clad guarantee.

[4th law of robotics]

30. So does producing pools or aspirin

actually more kids die of drowning or overdoses than guns by far.

So . . . what's your point?

Also in the CP case the harm is inherent in the production. With your gun analogy the harm is hypothetical and caused by a downstream user.

Ford doesn't cause drunk driving. Even though tools they produce are involved in that we don't blame them for the actions of downstream users do we?

Anyone who claimed we should shut down all automotive producers and treat the UAW as organized child-porn producers would be laughed out of the room.

As they should.

[Loudly]

35. You make the mistake of equating accidents with deliberate harm.

And you attribute to me a strange slander of automotive workers of which I am completely innocent.

[4th law of robotics]

36. I suppose that makes a huge difference to the parents

"ma'am your child is dead, but don't worry. The pool that killed him had no ill-intents"
-oh thank god. Why even bother me with a phone call then? Geez.

/and there is no logical difference between blaming gun manufacturers for their products being misused and blaming the UAW for their products being misused. It's not slander if it's true.

//and the word you're looking for is libel. Slander is spoken. Libel is written. But even that isn't right.

[Loudly]

40. Intent is the heart of the criminal law.

And you might as well check that product safety or strict liability argument at the door.

Gun makers have the full protection of Congress as part of the same depravity.

(Yes, libel is correct. Sorry, I thought we were just talking.)

[4th law of robotics]

41. Now in our criminal law

do we ever ascribe intent to objects?

Or is that limited to people and their immediate actions?

Also is intent ever enough to condemn a person without any sort of action on their part? (ie can you be arrested for murder for simply wishing someone were dead. Or theft for wishing you had someone else's car?).

/your analogy-fu is weak young grasshopper.

[Loudly]

44. We limit and deny access to dangerous objects.

Recognizing that a thing can be dangerous in and of itself.

And assuming that intent is a variable which should not be permitted in the admixture.

[4th law of robotics]

45. Right but the intent goes with the person not the object

No objective I've ever seen has any sort of intent other than to sit there and be an object. Which is at worst neutral.

And the courts have upheld the right to own these and other dangerous objects.

[glacierbay]

47. And a firearm is not a dangerous item in and of itself

the only time it becomes dangerous is when it is used by an outside force. The firearms in my safe are nothing more than hunks of steel and plastic items no more dangerous than a knife in it's drawer until that knife is removed from the drawer by a human hand.

[spayneuter]

75. What utter nonsense. A gun cannot harm anyone by just sitting on a table, even if loaded...

a swimming pool can claim the life of a child simply by existing and waiting for gravity to work its force.
Do you actually believe the stuff you write?

[glacierbay]

43. No they don't

They are protected from frivolous lawsuits brought by certain anti gun cities who were trying to sue the firearms manufacturer's out of existence by claiming that the man. were responsible for the misuse of their products, they are not protected if they knowingly manufacture and place on the market a defective product.
Did you honestly think that someone wasn't going to call you on this?

[Loudly]

46. "I didn't know I was speeding" is no defense.

Strict liability means you're guilty merely because you were traveling over the limit.

If you manufacture guns and ammunition, you can't claim you didn't know somebody is going to get shot.

[glacierbay]

48. And no firearms manufacturer has ever claimed that they didn't know that their product

was going to be used for what it was designed for, but the manufacturer's are not responsible for the misuse of their product as those cities were claiming, that's like saying that auto companies are responsible for a drunk driver killing or injuring someone because they built the vehicle.

[oneshooter]

90. Should auto manufactures be held to the same standards?

After all more people are killed and injured in and by vehicles than by firearms.

[DragonBorn]

60. Wut?

Im sorry but could you care to tell me how many children my firearms have hurt or will harm in the future?

[Remmah2]

24. Should we ban cameras?

Without cameras there would be no child pornography. How about photo journalist, should they be licensed?

[4th law of robotics]

31. That is a more apt analogy

and what I was struggling to come up with.

Treating gun workers as CP producers makes as much sense and treating people who work in camera factories as CP producers.

[SecularMotion]

3. Nor should we base our laws on irrational fears.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. +1 Absolutely...

[SecularMotion]

16. So you agree the need for citizens to carry weapons in public is based on irrational fears?

[Remmah2]

20. Nor should we base our laws on irrational fears.

The same could be said for many gun control laws. Plastic guns invisible to to x-ray machines, cop killer bullets, "assault weapons", flash hiders, high capacity bullet hoses, sound familiar?

Much of that hype is used to generate irrational fears promoting gun control laws.

[glacierbay]

21. Nope

it's based on the fact that the police aren't responsible for the individuals protection unless in their custody, it's based on the fact that citizens are responsible for their own safety and self defense.

[4th law of robotics]

25. Anti-gunners are conflicted here

on the one hand the US is a shooting zone and we're being massacred in the streets every day.

On the other hand the US is perfectly safe so wanting a gun to defend yourself is irrational.

Both arguments are made simultaneously and both are somehow true despite being contradictory.

Vehemently holding to two contradictory ideas at the same time to push some overall belief is the mark of a religion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. Well, irrational fear...

...may sometimes motive some folks to carry weapons more often than others, irrational fear also motivates some folks to unreasonably try to control the behavior of others. It's a two-way street.

[Jenoch]

116. The fear of

all CCW holders carrying concealed weapons in public would be an example of an irrational fear.

[Missycim]

80. You are right, we should let the irrational fears of

gun grabbers stop us from exercising our 2nd amendment rights

[HockeyMom]

4. You weren't born with a gun in your hand

Gays, blacks, browns, females, etc., are BORN that way. Can you see the difference in gun ownership?

[Remmah2]

5. To protect ones self for how they were born should not be a crime either. nt

nt

[Atypical Liberal]

11. But I WAS born with the right to defend myself.

Everyone is born with the right to defend themselves. Unless you want to relegate everyone to physical contests of strength with their attackers, putting the weak at the mercy of the strong, guns are the best tool for self-defense.

[HockeyMom]

18. Your brain is your best

weapon of defense. There would be no guns if we didn't have the brains to invent them.

[4th law of robotics]

27. That doesn't really make any sense

we did use are brains to invent guns. So why not use guns?

Archimedes was one of the most brilliant men who ever lived.

He was killed by some illiterate peasant conscript with a bit of sharp iron.

His mighty brain didn't help much there did it?

[Atypical Liberal]

34. Good luck using your mind powers against an attacker.

Your brain is your best weapon of defense.

In the United States, every year about 1.3 million people are victims of violent crime.

1.3 million people.

There have been people willing to inflict violence on others since the first man picked up a rock.

Situational awareness is a great tool to avoid conflict when possible. But as over a million people can testify every year, this doesn't always work.

People are victims of violent criminals. And unless you want to force every one of these victims to engage in a physical contest of strength with their attackers, gun are the best tool to defend yourself from them.

There would be no guns if we didn't have the brains to invent them.

What is this supposed to mean? That man should not think? Man has been inventing weapons for all of recorded history. The firearm itself is several hundreds of years old. The modern firearm is over a hundred years old.

Wishing that man had not thought to make weapons is a folly.

[4th law of robotics]

37. Our brains are great tools

useful for inventing things.

This proves that we shouldn't use the things our brains have invented.

Huh?

/our brains invented (discovered, learned to control, whatever) fire. Therefore we shouldn't use fire to cook food. We should use our brains to cook food.

//also isn't the implication here that victims of crimes or those who didn't defend themselves very well are stupid?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. That sounds to me...

...like a good advocacy for defending yourself with a gun.

I agree with both of your statements.

[spayneuter]

76. If we didn't have the brains to invent them, we would all be garden slugs.

That's the only response I could think of to a post that made less than no sense.

[rDigital]

112. Wow, mom, logic fail. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

114. ? Are you telekinetic ?

awesome !!

[graham4anything]

7. what a really, really stupid analogy.MY first amendment right is violated by a gun and bullets

freedom of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness when one is shot dead is violated because of a material item
which has nothing to do with racism/sexism, homophobia, stringing of say Mathew Shepard because one has different belief.

ban guns and bullets
and if not, tax them higher than the highest tax on cigarettes
audit the nra
take away their tax free status (which costs ME those tax dollars)
and get rid of gun dealers, who ply people with these weapons of mass destructions

a gun never saved anyone

millions of gay people have benefited the world since it started

again

what a real stupid inane audacious ridiculous analogy that article of propaganda makes


and then get a supreme court made up of 9 anti-gun folks.

must have guns for brains


without four(possibly five) bullets JFK RFK and John Lennon and MLK would be here, and Teddy might have been President too

[DonP]

12. No, stupid is not knowing what the 1st amendment actually protects

Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Thankfully we don't have to rely on "constitutional scholars" like you.

Let me help, perhaps you can point out which part protects your life, liberty etc.?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, please share with the rest of the class what you are doing in the real world to enact your oh, so insightful new laws?

[graham4anything]

56. my right to assemble peacefully to watch a movie

and not have a radical rightwing extremist shoot up a theatre with a gun and a bullet
or my right to have a woman's right to privacy taken away because some asshole with a gun kills a kind meek doctor in a church (of all places). There goes my freedom of religion when a gun enters a church.(let alone a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion).

or my right to have kids in school not shot up by people with guns.

Brains saved more people than guns have. (though guns are good for getting rid of brains like happened to JFK).

Guns are like drugs. Made to kill. No other reason.

If only the great Mike Bloomberg were given free reign to get his pet project passed.

If the NRA (the worlds #1 super lobby group) would be disbanded, then maybe candidates wouldn't be blackmailed into doing the devil's work.
Or better yet, Mike Bloomberg should support all those with more money than the NRA would put out for their candidates.
That would make candidates not fearful if only they had the back of someone with more money than the NRA

super pacs aren't bad, but the NRA is. Follow their money.

[gejohnston]

57. the guy doesn't sound radical or right wing

or radical left wing either.
Yet the great Mike Bloomburg would continue to push his anti 4A agenda, stop and frisk, his love of supply side economics, wall street deregulation, union busting

[graham4anything]

59. nice changing of the subject and

actually, it is the NYC police department, which is an entity in their own

but don't let facts get in the way

Wall Street is up higher than in years, which means the economy is coming back
BTW, when you think about Wall Street, what are you talking about but stereotyping

Is it the 9 to 5 workers who make up 99% of the company?

These lumping everything together is ridiculous. (and just as bad as the republibertariansteaparty who hate all Muslims.

What specifically does any of the above issues, have to do with guns and rights?

as for me, give me more, more more cameras and machines that can tell me if someone enters or is loitering outside a movie theatre with a gun in their pocket(to make up for their lack of something else perhaps???))

I might have thought different years ago, but hey, its a new world 2012, and the biggest single threat to the USA are the rightwing extremist repub/tea/libertarians.

Took a long time to realize what a great hero Janet Reno was, and how it wasn't the head guy at WACO but the Wackos at Waco he couldn't control, and all those guns illegally stashed

(and not to mention the constitutional rights of that one agent that was murdered there.)

everything is not straight forward in the new world we are in.

this ain't the 1850s wild wild wild west

BTW-if one lives by the gun, they are doomed to be taken down by someone with a bigger gun.
Whereas using ones brain instead of a gun makes alot more sense.
(like allowing more cameras to insure the safety. If one is doing something wrong, why the fuss?
I come from NYC and for 30 years have been frisked going to Madison Square Garden to see big concerts
Comes with the feeling that I can enjoy the show, and not have some nut shoot up the place.
If one doesn't like that, they are not forced to enter in the first place.

[DonP]

58. Are you really that dense or just putting us on?

Do you really not understand the 1st amendment?

Here's a hint. It has nothing to do with you going to a movie or any of the other "rights" you seem to think you have. Going to a movie is not "peacably assembling" and "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not appear in the Constitution.

But please feel free to work on getting the NRA disbanded. That will be interesting to watch.

It would be a pleasant change of pace. Most of the gun control fans down here just blather online and never actually DO anything about it in the real world. They don't actually join gun control groups, they don't circulate petitions to repeal concealed carry laws or actually do much of anything but whine online and post one inaccuracy after another.

We're so glad you're different.

Please, keep us all informed about your activities in support of your stated goals of disbanding the NRA and repealing all the constitutionally protected rights you don't approve of.

[graham4anything]

61. private person having a weapon of mass destruction is not mentioned in the 2nd Amend.

no matter what you think

Mike Bloomberg got the money and hopefully, after the election, he will put it to use

After all, in another year he will be retired as mayor, and as one of the hardest working
self made billionaires, a people person who sweated and earned every penny
(and is a Boston liberal his whole life),he has the time, money and energy to do whatever he wants without the need for any pac whatsoever

Why afraid of an NRA audit? What do you think they are hiding?
Last I heard, super pacs were not liked by DU people.
Why is the NRA different when indeed they are the #1 most forceful pac in the world.

Last I heard, having a community of 250 people or 1000 people gather together for a common cause, be it a movie or a town hall (where they show movies and videos) is really, obviously the 1st amendment.

Where specifically does it say going to see The Dark Knight and being worried about some rightwing radical extremist republicanlibertarianteaparty person shooting up the place is what the founding fathers were thinking?

always funny that the 2nd amendment groupies never seem to care about any of the other amendments, or the trampling of the other rights so they can delusionally think they can stockpile any and all weapons of mass destructions and from one to a thousand or tens of thousands of bullets.

and then try to say anyone elses interpretation is wrong.

Thomas Jefferson never intended for the Zimmerman's to shoot someone else in cold blood and claim they have that right.
Nor wanted the Columbine kids to be killed

Nor, the cops in New Orleans on Danzinger Bridge who shot to kill any black person who dared to want to enter dry land.

No, Thomas Jefferson did not want that. Try telling me he did.

[DonP]

67. AGAIN, what are you personally doing about any of it?

FWIW, I don't know any gun owners that don't respect all 10 amendment in the BoR. But feel free to post a cite to any examples you might have on hand. You actually think going to a movie is a great example of exercising your freedom to assemble?

Mass destruction? Funny, mine only fire one round per trigger pull. A little too much hyperbole in your Long Island Tea this afternoon?

I'm so fucking happy for you that I could just plotz, waiting for Bloomie to spend all his money on your favorite cause. Any minute now it will happen. Happy to see you love you some 1%er too.

So you don't mind stop and frisk, I wonder if the minorities in NYC feel the same way, from what I've read it's not really popular with a lot of them, and you hate the cops that made sure they disarmed the blacks in NO. Great. Nice company you keep.

The rest of your post is just pure stream of unconsciousness Whargarble!

But again, what the hell are you doing about it? Besides cheering from the sidelines.

So you really are just another whiny gun control fan posting endless and pointless rants, as if that really means something to anyone besides you and your ego?

In the meanwhile the NRA and gun owners actually continue to do things in the real world. That's why your state has concealed carry and more liberal gun laws every year. No signs of any of that changing either.

[graham4anything]

68. the blacks in Katrina HAD NO GUNS and you are meshing topics

but it was a good Bush soundbyte that said they did

and the cops in jail for what happened on Danzinger Bridge got the justice handed to them

I do mind when the corrupt steriod induced cops in NJ and NY stereotype and wrongly frisk only minorities(specifically blacks who are abused) .

What I don't mind is people being frisked to insure there are no weapons at concerts or movies.
When it is (like at the airport) ALL subject to the same thing. Not picked out because of ones race or sex or group.

NYC does NOT allow guns in bars, sure hope they never do.In what world does one think having a gun in a bar that naturally has people arguing sports or movies or the world, is a good idea? Why would someone need to have a gun there? Or in a restuarant?

I accept there is nothing present to do except to wait til (like cigarettes) it changes.
OR better systems come into place making them obsolete.

I do not see why anyone would need 100s of bullets. How many deer can one kill at one time?
How many intruders are people expecting to break into their home?

And most lifetime criminals do not use guns in states with zero tolerance against guns.
The jewel thiefs and electronic thief professionals know better than to be caught carrying.

What really are you afraid of that say, a baseball bat(metal?) wouldn't actually do the trick better. (or better yet, more security inside and out to stop the crime before).

So sorry, this argument you lose.


btw, the NRA is the 1%. Your asking what one person(me) would do, well, how could I possibly go against the nra with their who knows how many 100s of millions of super money?

How does the NRA get a pass, from all other anti-pac feelings?

[graham4anything]

69. I mean, what really are gun people so scared of happening?

so they will die for their right to have a gun

What are they scared of happening?

Bush left office. Don't vote another Bush back in 2016, and what in the world is there to worry about?

If say some country drops a big bomb, your gun won't help.
It may delay things for say 10 seconds, or who knows what one wants that gun to do, but how and why are gun people so scared?

(could it be some nutty conspiracy theory? And the thing that gets me in this thread is-
the putting Gays and Guns on the same level.

That is just weird.

[Missycim]

81. The guy who shot up the theater wasn't a right wing

extremist, if anything he was more of a left wing person.

[spin]

70. The NRA has only 4.3 million members out of the 80 million gun owners. ...

The NRA is merely a convenient excuse for the media and those politicians who support stronger gun control to blame their failure to impose draconian gun laws on the citizens of this nation.

The majority of the media has an intense dislike of civilian firearm ownership and has been more than willing to exaggerate, distort and even flat out lie about the facts concerning the gun control issue in order to promote its agenda. If you have little or no knowledge of firearms you might easily form the impression that it is possible to buy a modern military grade fully automatic or select fire assault rifle from your Mom and Pop gun store, Walmart or at a gun show with little or no effort. Every time allowing "shall issue" concealed carry was considered in a state, the media promptly did its best to try to stop the effort by claiming that there would be shootouts at every intersection and show downs on Main Street at high noon despite the fact that the states who had allowed "shall issue" concealed carry had no such problems. I could go on and on but you should see my point.

Congressional politicians elected from areas of the nation where gun ownership is rare often try to pass strong gun control laws and fail because they find little or no support from other politicians who come from areas where gun ownership is common. Many Democrats in Congress and the overwhelming percentage of Republicans are opposed to laws such as another assault weapons ban. In many cases it would simply be political suicide for a member of Congress to vote for such laws!

I believe it is a simple cop out to blame the NRA. Sure the NRA is an effective lobbying organization but only 5% of gun owners are members. The simple fact that your side of the issue chooses to ignore is that stronger gun control enjoys little support from voters. A recent Gallup poll shows this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

If strong gun control is popular with most citizens, please explain why The Brady Campaign has perhaps only 50,000 members.

I personally feel we can improve our gun laws and better enforce them in order to make them more effective. An effort to do so would have support from the majority of gun owners and most citizens and voters. It does require that those who support stronger gun control stop trying to pass items such as bans or restrictions on certain firearms or the federal registration of all firearms. It would also mean that both sides of the issue would be willing to compromise which is a lost art in our nation.

[graham4anything]

79. it is because the Brady law doesn't go anywhere near what is needed

it is because gun dealers (some) will deal out the back door to make a sale.

And the NRA does not have enough members to audit out for all the money that is spent either.

And the way those polls are timed and phrased all make people wary of the spin the gun people use about rights.

Why are 40% of the people supporting republicanteapartylibertarians?

HOWEVER
if there was someone like Mike Bloomberg with his billions, and fully funded a campaign and then took polls after glossy ads were blanketed over all states, I bet the polls would show different.

And the Marlboro man sure looked cool in the 60s didn't he? All the girls flocked to people looking like him.
But time passed, and wow, the Marlboro man who died of lung cancer (there were a few models that were used to depict him) that man sure lost his looks as he was dying, didn't he?

And the campaign to show people the harm of cigarettes has indeed worked as less and less and less people smoke now.

Yes I smoked up to the early 80s. Never wanted nor touched one in 28 years.

and btw, who needs a 60 ounce soda to watch a 2 hour movie? And guess who has put his money behind that.
(I know anti-dems say nanny state, blah blah blah).
But the law passed in NYC yesterday.


so perceptions change.

And the other thing is the utter racism because of course, what is it that is the secret fear of SOME of the gun wanters (and I am NOT referring to anyone hear at DU) just in general?

Yeah, we know what they are afraid of. The Willie Hortons out there.
which stat wise, it is more likely you will be hit by lightning than attacked.

I personally don't want more gun laws that have more loopholes than Russ Feingold's campaign finance laws he wrote, I myself would like to see them banned, and bullets to to all private people except for armies or the national guard they were intended for.
(it's not like a gun is going to stop an army.)

and those survivalist situations, I for one would not want to be here and I know of no one who is not a real rightwinger, that in reality would want to be here if the world ended.
And a gun would not help people then, because, well, your bullets will eventually run out anyhow or your gun will jam, and what happens if there are people on all sides of you shooting.
You can only shoot a few of them before they shoot you.

Gun collectors could still collect (they don't need bullets, and those that want to shoot can go to a range like mini-golf fans, and they give you a putter but you don't take it off the property.

[Missycim]

82. Well that was a nice screed you just posted

but I am glad none of what you said matters. Its settled law and all of blommies billions wont change that.

Shame you wasted all that time typing that out. How about you start getting the 2nd disbandment repelled, get back to me with how well you are doing.

[DonP]

85. Just another ill informed gun controller who is only a Keyboard Kommando

I asked them several times what they are actually "doing" in the real world to support their beliefs and, like all the rest of the gun cotnrol supporters, the answer is ranting online, based on no real facts and a shitload of misinformation (doesn't know about the Katrina forced disarmings etc.), about how things should be. Another online whiner.

The only interesting/funny point is, this one actually thinks Bloomie will suddenly check his massive ego at the door and suddenly dedicate his billions to making this one's vision of gun control reality. Of course they overlook Bloomies cadre of armed guards and his other day to day hypocrisy, like handing out gun permits like candy to the rich and famous.

[spin]

103. It is interesting that you mention Mayor Bloomberg. ...

He is indeed a strong voice for stricter gun control. He is also a member of the 1%.

Perhaps that's why it is not surprising that in Mayor Bloomberg's kingdom of New York City other members of the 1% as well as the famous and the well connected can obtain permission to own and sometimes even carry firearms while the average citizen finds getting a permit a daunting and expensive task. It appears he supports "may issue" concealed carry.

Concealed carry in the United States

Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity.

***snip***

May-Issue

A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police). The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met. While an applicant must qualify for a permit by meeting criteria defined in state law, local jurisdictions in May-Issue states often have locally-defined requirements that an applicant must meet before a permit will be granted, such as providing adequate justification to the approval authority for needing a concealed carry permit (self-defense in and of itself may not be sufficient justification in some areas where justification is required).

A state that is de jure a May-Issue jurisdiction may range anywhere from Shall-Issue to No-Issue in practice,[27][28] i.e., Permissive May-Issue to Restrictive May-Issue, based on each licensing authority's willingness to issue permits to applicants. Alabama, Connecticut and Delaware are regarded as Permissive May-Issue states, while Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico are considered Restrictive May-Issue states. California, Massachusetts, and New York vary within state; Inland California, rural portions of Massachusetts, and Upstate New York are Permissive, while the New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco metropolitan areas are Restrictive. In some May-Issue jurisdictions, permits are only issued to individuals with celebrity status, have political connections, or have a high degree of wealth.[29][30][31] In some such cases, issuing authorities charge arbitrarily-defined fees that go well beyond the basic processing fee for a CCW permit, thereby making the CCW permit unaffordable to most applicants....emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

The Rich, the Famous, the Armed

By JO CRAVEN McGINTY
Published: February 18, 2011

MEN and women. Democrats and Republicans. Doctors, lawyers, merchants and moguls. A remarkable, if relatively small, cross-section of New Yorkers legally own handguns, according to public records obtained by The New York Times.

Among the more than 37,000 people licensed to have a handgun in the city are dozens of boldface names and public figures: prominent business leaders, elected officials, celebrities, journalists, judges and lawyers.

***snip***

The 41,164 handguns registered with the Police Department as of Jan. 14 include those owned by more than 2,400 people who live outside the city but have permission to bring their weapons here — people like Roger E. Ailes, the president of Fox News, whose license lists an address in New Jersey; John J. Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, who lives in Westchester County; and Sean Hannity, the conservative talk-show host, who lives on Long Island.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/nyregion/20guns.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

NYC's '1 percent' totally 'gun'-ho

By BRAD HAMILTON and GARY BUISO

Last Updated: 11:26 AM, April 22, 2012

The “1 percent” comes in piece.

Dozens of New York City’s billionaires, real-estate moguls and Wall Street CEOs are really loaded, according to the NYPD’s gun-permit list obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information Act.

Top guns include Donald Trump, Marvel Comics head Isaac Perlmutter and Gristedes chairman and mayoral wannabe John Catsimatidis.

***snip***

The really loaded

Ronald Lauder: Worth $3.3 billion, No. 103 on Forbes

Donald Trump: Worth $2.9 billion, No. 128 on Forbes 400

Joseph Sitt: Coney Island developer with assets of $1 billion

Andrew Farkas: Island Capital CEO used to employ Andrew Cuomo.

Richard Fields: Hard Rock casino mogul

Howard Stern: Recently inked $400 million deal with Sirius

John Catsimatidis: Gristedes CEO worth $2 billion, No. 212 on Forbes

John Mack: Former Morgan Stanley CEO

Larry Gluck: Real-estate mogul owns Independence Plaza and heads Stellar Management.

Adam Rose: Owner of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village.

Isaac Perlmutter: Marvel comics CEO worth $1.9 billion, No. 263 on Forbes.

Tommy Mottola: Bronx-born recording exec worth $100 million

George Klein: Real-estate mogul, CEO of Park Tower Group

Ivan Seidenberg: Former Verizon CEO made $62 in 2009-2011

Dana Duneier: CEO of Madison Avenue jeweler Clyde Duneier

Albert Fried: Managing director of venerable Wall Street firm Albert Fried & Company.

Martin Goodstein: Founder of Goodstein Management

Donald Trump Jr.: First son of The Donald works for the Trump Organization.

Eric Trump: Third son of Donald, he’s also in the family biz.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/the_really_loaded_gsK0QeUR76khfXuWYvruOJ

If you take the time to do some research you will discover that gun control has a long history of racism. For example the KKK used to use the fact that Black communities were basically disarmed to terrorize them. Today racism in the gun control movement is not as evident but still I feel it still exists. "May issue" firearm permits allow local authorities the opportunity to discriminate against minorities and the poor.

"Shall issue" concealed carry which is favored by gun owners and the NRA is color blind and discrimination free. If an individual can meet the requirements which include a criminal background check and proof of firearm safety training and pay a very reasonable fee he/she can get a concealed weapons permit in Florida. It matters not what your skin color is or if you are rich and famous or poor and unknown. Florida requires few limitations on firearm ownership and a resident of legal age can obtain a firearm from a gun shop if he/she can pass a NICS background check without permission from any local authorities. No racism is involved and I know many Blacks and Hispanics who own firearms and some have concealed weapons permits many of whom I have personally introduced to the shooting sports.

[rl6214]

71. Let's see, what do all of those locations have in common...

"and not have a radical rightwing extremist shoot up a theatre with a gun and a bullet
or my right to have a woman's right to privacy taken away because some asshole with a gun kills a kind meek doctor in a church (of all places). There goes my freedom of religion when a gun enters a church.(let alone a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion).

or my right to have kids in school not shot up by people with guns. "

OH that's right, they are all gun free zones.

[glacierbay]

14. A gun never saved anyone?

Really?

&feature=related

&feature=related

Shall I keep going?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. re: "a gun never saved anyone"

Very true. The gun is just a tool. We attribute the good and honorable act of saving a life, by whatever means, to the individual or group responsible.

[4th law of robotics]

28. "a gun never saved anyone" True, which is why if you're ever in trouble you should just

call the cops.

So they can show up with their . . . er whistles.

[PavePusher]

49. "MY first amendment right is violated by a gun and bullets"

If someone is keeping you from expressing yourself by threatening you with a gun, I'm sure you have reported this situation to the police, right?

a gun never saved anyone

Demonstrateably false, but you aren't really here to deal with facts and evidence, are you?

without four(possibly five) bullets JFK RFK and John Lennon and MLK would be here, and Teddy might have been President too

And no-one was ever assasinated with any tool other than a gun, amirite?

[graham4anything]

54. bad analogy again JFK RFK Lennon MLK all were done in by guns

matters little if other people die in other ways

without a gun those people killed by guns would have stood a fighting chance

My right to assemble peacefully in a supermarket or movie theatre is violated by the fear someone might have a gun and shoot the place up, guns=bully, like Zimmerman is, and if he gets away with it, anyone can then shoot anyone and claim the same lies Zimmy has claimed.


but then all that you just wrote distracts from the really horrible analogy made between a basic right that all are created equal, and a material weapon of mass destruction that a gun and a bullet is

but i would indeed report any and all abuse I see to the police, or if something is not right, which is why now I am an advocate for more cameras, gun control, and having in all public places some way to mark anyone who has a gun so the others know someone in their midst might have a gun. (matters little to me if the gun is legal or illegal, as all guns are the exact same, and more people die from legal guns than illegal ones. (Matter of fact is that like those wanting to restrict voters, those wanting less gun restrictions use strawmen that just don't exist).

So MY constitutional rights to live in peace aren't violated by those weapons of mass destruction
As today's guns were NOT around when Tommy Jefferson and the boys made the laws, it is obvious today's guns are not part of any constitution

But feel free to have a cannon in your house or lawn. That is what the 2nd is talking about.

and the main thing is
being gay stops no one from not being gay, so how does someone who is gay bother someone who is not, unless that person is a homophobe.
Whereas having a gun is a clear and present danger to anyone around any person with a gun,
and a gun is not a person

[shadowrider]

62. * Yawn *

[graham4anything]

65. no one forces you to read if you find it so boring

guns are like cigarettes

most smart people no longer smoke

and freedom of speech means not everyone agrees with you

acceptance means realizing that so I know nothing will change in the near future
I accept that

the 1850s won't ever come back though.

another few years, with the demographics change even more so, and people evolve.

the new takes over, the old dies out
that's life

someday there will be a cure for all cancers and no one will die from any private gun or bullet.
(and that includes deer and bears too)

[rl6214]

72. Hmmm, these posts sound an awefull lot like Hoyt.

[glacierbay]

74. It can't be Hoyt

It's more than 2 sentences.

[graham4anything]

78. I guess this is some sort of ad hominem against me

those that know me from other places, where I outlasted a now deceased poster who was the talking points man for the NRA (and where I had been from 2004-very early 2012 til that place shut down from one day to the next

knows I am noone but ME, and that my views on guns is consistent.

I don't know who you are referring to, but maybe in the past he read me.

and just maybe there are plenty more anti-gun people around than you think. We just don't have a 100million dollar super lobby pac like the pro-gun people do.

(btw, why does the NRA seemingly only back white people with guns except in some rare token instances for show.)

Like yeah, I am sure if the Million man march a decade ago showed the million people who were there all having guns and in full view like the tea party, yeah, like that would have been allowed to go on. Right. Sure.

and again, what are gun people so afraid of that they need a gun?
A gun will only delay by seconds if a mob is out there.
(Think of the incidents in the mideast...do you really think if the ambassador had a gun he would have outshot all those people?

What is the real motive of gun people (and especially and not calling anyone here that, gun hoarders and bullet hoarders.
Why does anyone need all those bullets?

collectors of guns don't need bullets. Skeet shooters don't need real ammo in their house.
Those that go to ranges and shoot don't need to have their toys in their homes either.

What is the real ulterior motive and worry?
And how is that on the democrat side of things?

[glacierbay]

84. What I or anyone else needs

is none of your business. You don't like firearms, pretty obvious, fine, then don't own any, but don't pretend to know what we need or don't need.
BTW, when was the Dept. of Needs created?
Get my drift?

[graham4anything]

86. it is if it affects my rights

the gov't #1 function is to keep me safe

therefore, if a gun is used for something against say, my government, then it indeed needs to be known and shouted from the rooftop

If I am in a movie theatre peacefully assembling to see whatever movie is playing and some asshole walks in with a gun that either on purpose or accidentally might go off and kill me or someone with me, then indeed it is my right to know that

just because a bogus supreme court says one thing, and Florida had a bogus law, did not give anyone the right to go after an innocent person and in cold blood shoot that person dead.

same as the nice, kind meek doctor who was brutally murdered in a church by a gun

Same as the federal agent at Waco who was mowed down by gun hoarding wackos there

same as the nice innocent unarmed people who were mowed down by a vicious vigillante border patrol

so indeed, there is a need to know when it affects my rights as said in the Declaration and ALL the bill of rights (not just #2 which is the least important one in there.)

Just like cigarettes should be banned, not so much for the schmucks that smoke, but because their suicide cravings affect anyone standing next to them outside a building or where ever.

When the weapon of mass destruction can shoot to kill an innocent person unreleated to whatever weird need the gun lover has to carry a gun, then indeed, it should be known.

It's a matter of life and death.

and yes, I am curious as to what people need so many bullets for. Sounds very, very, secretive and weird, as if something were being plotted.

Too many Kevin Costner survivalist movies(fiction they are you know), if one were to ask me.
(instead one should watch 2 old Twilight zones which delve on the theme- one, about a gunslinger, the other about a pool player. Both doomed to have to keep proving their ?something or other ? eternally by beating anyone who takes them on.Think the pool one starred Jack Klugman.

I guess though its like asking Mitt Romney for specifics and he gives none.

[glacierbay]

88. Show me where in the BoR

the right to be safe. You can't because it's not a right.

You can complain all you want about the RKBA, the people and SCOTUS have spoken and that's all that matters.

I don't care if you think it's very, very secretive and weird to want to stockpile bullets, once again, it's none of your business.

I own several weapons, so what? No threat to you and you are not threatened by the 99% of gun owners in the country, so, again, none of your business on why or what we own.

Until you can petition the Fed. Govt. to create a Dept. of Needs, your post is nothing more than ranting.

[graham4anything]

92. but Scotus is temporary

because a different court can make a different ruling

and as thomas jefferson specifically included amendments to count as much as the day they wrote it then anytime and anywhere an amendment could happen (or perhaps an executive order by a president) and then this, the least important of any part, will be gone.

Justice Thomas and Scalia won't be on the court forever even if they stay til they are 100 each.

and cigarettes are still legal, but the vast majority of people now do not smoke, and the KKK is allowed to march, legally, however, most everyone is not a member of them, and the few people who watch their parade do so to mock and deride and so they can see what they look like.

However, the NRA's tax free status is something that can legally be looked into, and maybe change the laws or something so anyone harmed by a gun could include the NRA in a civil lawsuit, and maybe finding them guilty of compliance.

at the very least tax an individual bullet as much as a pack of cigarettes, which used to cost 50cents a pack or about 2 cents each, and now cost 20 to 40 times that much.
If each bullet cost say 20 bucks a piece

Or maybe just allow the government to be the one to sell guns, and get rid of an independent gun dealer (sort of like how Walmart got rid of all the independent mom and pop stores )

The deficit could be instantly gotten rid of, with the right amount of higher sin taxes put on guns and bullets


btw, under the logic of gun lovers, a criminal who normally doesn't use a gun and was never arrested for a crime involving a gun, should have the same right to own a gun as anyone else.
And in those states, have a right to carry the gun, and if their life is threatened by someone in a house say, then the criminal should have that same right, no? Especially if the crimnal didn't have the gun in their hand to start off with, but legally concealed on their body.
After all, they were only protecting themselves. Right?

[glacierbay]

94. If you're pinning your hopes on the SCOTUS overturning the Second Amendment

all I can say is, good luck with that. All 9 Justices agreed that the 2A is an individual right not connected to militia service.

Face the fact, you will NEVER get guns or ammo banned in this country. There are appox. 80-90 million gun owners with about 300,000,000 guns and we are a potent voting bloc who do vote, what can your side muster? Not much, not even close, but you just keep on hoping, nothing wrong with that.

[graham4anything]

97. without the NRA, you are but one person with no voice

you know, the gun people sound like the corporations

alot recently have altered the small print, to specifically disalow class action lawsuits.

that an individual can still sue them (in the court of the corporations choice, but the small print now reads that if you use that corporation or bank or whatever, you cannot piggyback on a class action.

Your statement though shows why the NRA has too much power, and how the NRA considers itself their own governmental force, with the ability to take over the US.

There are 300 million people in this country and its growing quickly. So that means there are 220 million people without a gun. What are the gun lovers plotting secretly to shoot all the non gun owners?

but they should raise the tax on a single bullet to $10.00 or $20.00. Wow, the entire world could be prosperous just on that money alone.

[glacierbay]

101. Don't forget the millions that do support gun ownership

not just those of us who do own them. But you just keep thinking that the 2A is going to get repealed if that's what keeps you going in life. Good luck.
Oh, and if you think that the SCOTUS can strike down the 2A, I suggest you brush up on your history.

[oneshooter]

104. Question asked at post #90. Please answer. n/t

[spin]

108. The Supreme Court currently leans in a conservative direction and has for years. ...

However despite the desire of conservatives, Roe v Wade hasn't been overturned since the court ruled in 1973.

Perhaps in 40 or 50 years a more liberal Supreme Court will overturn the recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago but I wouldn't get your hopes up too high that this will happen anytime soon. Times change but not rapidly.

Much of the legal battle over gun control laws in the near future will focus on the legality of the laws passed by states and cities restricting those who can own a firearm and who can legally carry one. The recent SCOTUS rulings do not prohibit all gun control laws.

You pose the idea of taxing bullets so that each would cost "20 bucks a piece." That would mean that a box of 50 handgun rounds would cost $1000 which would mean that just one box would cost twice what the very popular Glock pistol sells for.

In order to functionally check a new firearm you have to run at least one box of ammo through it and to develop any proficiency with using it requires far more rounds for practice. Under your plan only the 1% could afford to practice shooting with legal ammunition. However a black market would spring up and deal in smuggled ammunition just as the drug cartels market illegal drugs.

You also ignore or are not aware of the fact that many shooters reload their own ammunition and some even cast their own bullets. I reloaded my own handgun ammo for 30 years and still have the equipment to do so. I often reloaded a box of 50 .38 caliber bullets 30 times or more. All I would need is my expended brass, primers, powder and some cheap equipment such as a bullet mold and I can easily and cheaply produce very accurate ammo.

I suggest you check out these links to find out how simple it is:
http://www.zjstech.net/gunstuff/casting.html
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/how-to-get-started-reloading-ammunition/

If I didn't still have my reloading requirement I could go to amazon.com and pick up what I need for well under $100.
http://www.amazon.com/Lee-Precision-38-SPL-Loader/dp/B00162RS7O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347669676&sr=8-1&keywords=lee+loader

I used a similar Lee Loader and produced about 6000 rounds for my handguns before I upgraded to a slightly more expensive reloading rig which was easier to use but the ammo I made with the Lee Loader worked just as well.

If you have any interest check out this site which sells reloading equipment and supplies.
http://www.amazon.com/Lee-Precision-38-SPL-Loader/dp/B00162RS7O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347669676&sr=8-1&keywords=lee+loader

I should also point out that passing any law that would tax ammo as you suggest is TOTALLY politically impossible at this time. Reality is a bitch.

You state:

However, the NRA's tax free status is something that can legally be looked into, and maybe change the laws or something so anyone harmed by a gun could include the NRA in a civil lawsuit, and maybe finding them guilty of compliance.

It might be possible to review the tax free status of the NRA but you open a big can of worms when you suggest a civil lawsuit against the NRA for the misuse of firearms. If such a tactic was successful it could lead to lawsuits against many manufacturers and organizations that promoted their products. For example a civil lawsuit against Chevrolet because the corporation manufactures the high powered Corvette which is quite capable of exceeding existing speed limits and in the wrong hands can be misused and cause tragedy. Also included in the lawsuit would be Road and Track magazine merely because it published a positive review of the Corvette and NASCAR because it supports automotive racing sports. I doubt if your idea would hold water in most courts in our nation.

Currently the right to sue gun-sellers for liability is winding its way through the court system. It's a complicated case. If you wish to read about its progress and chances of success visit: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/09/us-usa-shooting-liability-idUSBRE8781JA20120809

You also mention:

Or maybe just allow the government to be the one to sell guns, and get rid of an independent gun dealer (sort of like how Walmart got rid of all the independent mom and pop stores )

Mexico has a system very similar to what you suggest. How well has that worked out?

Mexico
Main article: Gun politics in Mexico

Mexico has strict gun laws. Mexican citizens and legal residents may purchase new non-military firearms for self-protection or hunting only after receiving approval of a petition to the Defense Ministry, which performs extensive background checks. The allowed weapons are restricted to relatively low-caliber and can be purchased from the Defense Ministry only. "Military" firearms, including pistols with bores exceeding .38 caliber, and bb guns (but not pellet guns) require federal licenses and are regulated in a manner similar to that dictated by the U.S. National Firearms Act (NFA). The private sale of "non-military" firearms, however, is unregulated, and while these firearms are supposed to be registered with the government, in practice this is widely ignored. Laws dealing with the possession of "non-military" firearms are left to the states. Generally, "non-military" firearms may be kept in the home, but a license is required to carry them outside the home. President Felipe Calderón has recently called attention to the alleged problem of the smuggling of guns from the United States into Mexico, guns which are easily available both legally and illegally in the United States, and has called for increased cooperation from the United States to stop this illegal weapons trafficking.[44][45] In the five years prior to 2012, over two-thirds of illegal firearms seized in Mexico that could be traced to a source, were traced backed to the United States of America. However, traceable firearms constitute only a small portion of the total seized, and the origin of the majority cannot be positively identified.[46]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Mexico

You do have a lot of ideas on how we could reduce gun violence in our nation. It appears to me that you largely ignore the fact that honest citizens frequently use firearms for legitimate self defense just as many who propose draconian gun laws often do. Firearms in civilian hands do cause tragedy but they can also save lives. You may view this as an old tired augment but disarming honest citizens would enable the criminal element to practice its profession without fear of encountered an armed victim. Criminals can always obtain firearms and ammunition. Many drugs are illegal but are still easy to purchase and readily available in all areas of our nation. I can walk two blocks from where I currently live in a small town in Northern Florida and purchase any drugs that I want. (Of course I have no interest in doing so.) I am positive that if I wished I could easily buy an illegal firearm and the ammo to feed it with no questions being asked from the same individuals who deal drugs. If your ideas were implemented it wouldn't eliminate the simple fact the black market would provide them for a significant price.

I always welcome debate. I will only suggest that you carefully consider my viewpoints and counter them in a polite manner. I will in return treat your ideas with respect and give them honest consideration. We may still end up disagreeing but we might learn something from each other. Perhaps we may reach some agreement on how we can improve existing laws and reduce gun violence in our nation.

I look forward to your reply if you choose to make one.

[graham4anything]

110. as to many points, but starting with the issue of drugs...

it is commonly thought that drugs, which are very big money makers for those (and not talking about the cartels or gangs in Mexico) who are really behind importing them into America.

It is a shadow network, and the dealer on the street is the most unimportant part of the transaction. Just normally a poor person with nowhere else to go, who got caught up and recruited from the next person up the ladder.

What is most likely is, some in the government in the past, current and future, make very large livings bringing it in (from foreign countries), and that those who do, make it impossible to get rid of (now).

In this political climate as you said, nothing is possible to get rid of the top level. But then the Teflon Don thought he was invincible too and after acquittal countless times, in the end the Government got him. Al Capone was brought down by not paying his taxes, not any of his other crimes. So it can happen, though of course, someone else is always there to take their place (btw, that analogy is why going after the CEO's of the big companies like OWS wants to do is meaningless, another will just come in and replace them.)

It takes generations to really enact the different changes. Drugs in the 1960s and 70s inserted into the ghetto went far to wipe out a generation of fathers living in those areas(through users and dealers), and certain elements in America liked the thought of ridding those people from ever voting or ever moving up in society.

Give those the neediest the opportunity for jobs and eventually one gets rid of the criminal element from the bottom up.

In a way, an older NY Police commissioner was somewhat right in their idea to prosecute those who did petty crimes, which after they were arrested for say jumping a turnstyle, they discovered those people had major unprosecuted crimes. However, as always, racism and police brutality came into play, and selective frisking and arrests.
Crime did drop however, but also, as the economy improved it naturally fell as people were able to get jobs (say the 1992-2000 era.)

Get rid of the crime, and then the #1 reason it is said people want or need guns (to protect themselves) makes it obsolete. (Sort of like how the repubs in 2012 are trying to get draconian Jim Crow voting laws, saying there is fraud when it is non-existent, or even the republicans saying give the rich a tax cut will help the poor.
(Meaning? There are almost no cases of election fraud that the repubs use as an excuse, and crime in the big cities(esp. NYC since Bloomberg has taken office) has dropped to the lowest level ever.(and in a city with one of the toughest gun laws.)

Yes, I know anyone anywhere can easily get a gun and bullets (and some have stockpiled a lifetime supply of ammo, so a new tax would be meaningless to stop those people who did so wanting it for their own private non criminal or for some say conspiracy theory reason).

Be it that one could separate the good gun owners from the bad, but as I am sure you know, that is impossible to do.

But it don't have to be so easy to get guns and bullets and drugs.

Cigarettes are taxed nationally, and use has dropped 90%.(were IMHO Hollywood to stop glamourizing it in movies, it would drop even more so. And the great anti-smoking ads, which I am sure the cigarette lobbies have tried to stop and sometimes succede, have gone far to stop people from doing it voluntarily.

The cigarette lobby was broken, and the the proper campaign could break the NRA, but yes, I know, it is impossible in 2012. Might be 2025 til something can be done. Might be quicker if the money was equal (i.e. a Bloomberg type person devoting any resource needed to have the influence of the NRA drop).

As for external issues, I am out of the conspiracy theory biz for the most part, however, let me offer some what ifs
What if the powers that be in the gun industry themselves made sure that they could embarrass or attempt to embarrass or get fired Eric Holder by setting up the person who died and making it seem like it was the drug cartel member that did the shooting?
As the thought is those people who are the head of the drug cartels are not the on the street people but higher ups, it is very possible for a "friendly flag" to have occurred for that reason.
(Same as some think that writers like Pearl were not killed by terrorists, but made to seem to have been killed by terrorists to advance the ability for more hatred against groups(in the 2002-2008 period, ) just when events were needed to keep the wars going. That is not so far out there thought. The public is very easy to brainwash).

Same as who knows who was really behind the killing of the ambassador and the 3 others, why, some rightwing billionaire easily could set things like that up in an attempt to try and equate Obama with Jimmy 1979 Carter.
(one could have fun with conspiracy theories all day).

The NRA has way too much power, and when democrats say democrat politicians have no spine, well, why would any house or senate person go against the NRA in 2012, knowing how the full force against them will get them ousted from their job.
That is my whole point.
And why a Bloomberg or Bloomberg type person would be so important to counteract that and have those democrats backs when they go against the NRA.

And starting rumors like the rightwing does, that 44 is going to take away your guns, though there is not one shred of evidence any idea of that is true, plays right into the hands of the 41 and a few years later 43 family wanting to become in 2016, 45(Jeb).
See how easy the American public can be manipulated.

(When in reality, look what 43's term brought, mercanaries replacing the need for troops to do the real dirty stuff, and why taken forward, those professionals on the side of 43 make it more likely that side would if they could ban guns, not 44.

Gun lovers say, they like the ability to have a concealed gun in case something happens in say the movie theatre situation.
I say to that, better security(at affordable prices for the theater owners) and making it mandatory, would get rid of the need for any gun. (If there would be something that would loudly say- that person has a gun before they get to the theatre and is not allowed in the theatre, then someone with a gun won't kill those in the theatre.
Eventually that type of tactic would stop criminals from going near theatres(and then use same techniques to do so at malls and schools and restaurants.

Free countries elsewhere have security like that (say Israel) where they have machine gun toting security all over, and there is almost no USA type crime, and the people are free
because free also means free from thought that a common criminal will attack.

Of course its not perfect, but there are less and less incidents of any type in Israel.
And other free nations have crime rates so low that it could be done here
(and I think most libertarians spewing my constitutional rights not to be searched or frisked, are republicans in hiding who have ulterior motives to start off with).

More cameras and more security are not a problem.
If you take away the criminal element, then the people who have guns solely for sport, say going to a shooting range, would have no problem (Why can't their guns be kept at those ranges, if the sole purpose they have it is to do that?)

This whole argument by the gun lovers reminds me of the way at election time the rightwing says what about the votes of the troop members overseas (yet wants any minority banned from voting, including a member of the forces, who is black, and not home to get the letter the repubs send out to see if the person exists, so that troop member is then disenfranchised).

And the PR people, professionals, of the NRA can write in perfect grammer, and wearing suit/tie look professional and get their point across, and have all the proof they want to show(no matter a regular person has no idea if those stats are truthful), vs. someone like me, with zero money, and one gets lazy with paragraphs, structure and doesn't have the money to dig into all the stats, so the NRA wins each time.

(and at any time, they throw in a few "my constitutional rights" and it ends the conversation just when the other side is making a point).

Much like how fruitless any conspiracy theory talk is, because some plants come in and get the conversation sidetracked by playing good cop/bad cop and putting some minutia into the mix which is not true, so the plant later could say, AHA that is not true, the whole idea is just a CT and then some of those reading stop arguing and cede the CT is not in any way true.

As you are able to separate paragraphs and reply to thoughts, I know I mixed into this post many different topics.
Feel free to answer all or none of them, and btw, I know I do not have the ability to change anything in 2012, especially prior to this election nothing will happen, and most likely nothing will happen the next four years either. (I would not want President Obama after he wins to use any capital he has on this issue, so much more big/important stuff needs to be done.)

But maybe after Mayor Bloomberg's last term is up in Jan. 2014,and he is very bored and very, very rich, and he gets into the issue big time, I would welcome that. Bloomberg would love to be President, however, he could not figure a way to get nominated, or a 3rd party way to get 270, and he is itching to find something to do, give away his money, and make something big part of his legacy, so he is in perfect position to battle the NRA

(and to whoever above said on the soft drink size issue-
Yes, one could still buy extra large cups of soda at the 7-11,that is not the point. The 7-11 is not part of the bill, only the places where the health department rates the restaurant/movie theatre, whatever, but the health department has the power to close an establishment who does not pass the tests.
And some already have said they will voluntarily comply earlier than the date it takes effect in 2013, and maybe at some point, the 7-11s will be shamed into doing so themselves.

Bloomberg got a pedestrian mall in the heart of Times Square, nobody thought he could do it, or it would be popular, but the people love it.

When he wants to do something, most of the time he succeeds because he does not give up, has the money to move things along and is trusted by the majority of the general public.
I would say a nationwide poll of Mayor Mike vs. the NRA would be an eyeopener in how far more liked Mike is.

[gejohnston]

113. correction

(Meaning? There are almost no cases of election fraud that the repubs use as an excuse, and crime in the big cities(esp. NYC since Bloomberg has taken office) has dropped to the lowest level ever.(and in a city with one of the toughest gun laws.)

You confusing voter fraud with election fraud. While the former is quite rare, I don't think the latter is. I would argue that touch screen machines, which are easily hacked to electronically "stuff the box", was part of why Kerry lost in 2004. Caging is also a form of election fraud. I doubt the gun laws had anything to do with any drop, since NYC has these gun laws since 1911.

I don't get what the rest of your post has to do with anything.

[spin]

115. Very interesting post ...

I found your comments on drugs insightful. I largely agree. I feel we should have considered the failure of Prohibition in our nation between 1920 and 1933 prior to launching our War on Drugs. The results of our attempt to stop drug smuggling and distribution are disturbingly similar to the consequences of our efforts to ban alcohol.

Organized Crime and Prohibition

***snip***
The following are statistics detailing how much worse crime got:

Police funding: INCREASED $11.4 Million
Arrests for Prohibition Las Violations: INCREASED 102+%
Arrests for Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct: INCREASED 41%
Arrests of Drunken Drivers: INCREASED 81%
Thefts and Burglaries: INCREASED 9%
Homicides, Assault, and Battery: INCREASED 13%
Number of Federal Convicts: INCREASED 561%
Federal Prison Population: INCREASED 366%
Total Federal Expenditures on Penal Institutions: INCREASED 1,000%


"Not only did the number of serious crimes increase, but crime became organized. Criminal groups organize around the steady source of income provided by laws against victimless crimes such as consuming alcohol or drugs, gambling and prostitution. In the process of providing goods and services those criminal organizations resort to real crimes in defense of sales territories, brand names, and labor contracts. That is true of extensive crime syndicates (the Mafia) as well as street gangs, a criminal element that first surfaced during prohibition."

"The contributing factor to the sudden increase of felonies was the organization of crime, especially in large cities. Because liquor was no longer legally available, the public turned to gangsters who readily took on the bootlegging industry and supplied them with liquor. On account of the industry being so profitable, more gangsters became involved in the money-making business. Crime became so organized because "criminal groups organize around the steady source of income provided by laws against victimless crimes such as consuming alcohol. As a result of the money involved in the bootlegging industry, there was much rival between gangs. The profit motive caused over four hundred gang related murders a year in Chicago alone."
http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html

You state, "What is most likely is, some in the government in the past, current and future, make very large livings bringing it in (from foreign countries), and that those who do, make it impossible to get rid of (now)." Once again this reminds me of the Prohibition era.

Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure

***snip***

Prohibition Caused Corruption

It was hoped that Prohibition would eliminate corrupting influences in society; instead, Prohibition itself be- came a major source of corruption. Everyone from major politicians to the cop on the beat took bribes from bootleggers, moonshiners, crime bosses, and owners of speakeasies. The Bureau of Prohibition was particularly susceptible and had to be reorganized to reduce corruption. According to Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Lincoln C. Andrews, "conspiracies are nation wide in extent, in great numbers, organized, well-financed, and cleverly conducted."[52] De- spite additional resources and reorganization, corruption continued within the bureau. Commissioner of Prohibition Henry Anderson concluded that "the fruitless efforts at enforcement are creating public disregard not only for this law but for all laws. Public corruption through the purchase of official protection for this illegal traffic is widespread and notorious. The courts are cluttered with prohibition cases to an extent which seriously affects the entire administration of justice."[53]

Prohibition not only created the Bureau of Prohibition, it gave rise to a dramatic increase in the size and power of other government agencies as well. Between 1920 and 1930 employment at the Customs Service increased 45 percent, and the service's annual budget increased 123 percent. Personnel of the Coast Guard increased 188 percent during the 1920s, and its budget increased more than 500 percent between 1915 and 1932. Those increases were primarily due to the Coast Guard's and the Customs Service's role in enforcing Prohibition.[54]

***snip***

Conclusion: Lessons for Today

Prohibition, which failed to improve health and virtue in America, can afford some invaluable lessons. First, it can provide some perspective on the current crisis in drug prohibition--a 75-year effort that is increasingly viewed as a failure.

Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics. Those lessons can be applied to the current crisis in drug prohibition and the problems of drug abuse. Second, the lessons of Prohibition should be used to curb the urge to prohibit. Neoprohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco would result in more crime, corruption, and dangerous products and increased government control over the average citizen's life. Finally, Prohibition provides a general lesson that society can no more be successfully engineered in the United States than in the Soviet Union.
https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

I definitely agree that we need to find a way to create worthwhile, well paying jobs in our nation. We also need to greatly improve our educational system in order to enable our students to be able to do these jobs.

I basically feel that it might be wise to make ammunition harder to get but ideas such as taxing ammunition to make it far more expensive may simply result in another black market. I have a far different idea which might be worth a try but will likely prove a failure.

I understand that scuba divers have to have a certification card prior to getting their air tanks filled at a dive shop. Sky divers also have a certification process. Perhaps an individual who wishes to buy ammunition or reloading components should be required to have a certification card that would require firearm safety training and perhaps even a background check to obtain. Of course the NRA would oppose this idea and supporters of strong gun control would say that it doesn't go far enough. My idea has little or no chance of ever becoming law.

You also state, "Get rid of the crime, and then the #1 reason it is said people want or need guns (to protect themselves) makes it obsolete." I agree!

I grew up in the 50s and the 60s and in the rural area of Ohio where I lived the only people who owned firearms were hunters, a few target shooters and gun collectors. My family never bothered to lock the doors to our house or our cars. Crime was low and almost non existent. I can't remember any of my neighbors owning a handgun. My mother did have a very small S&W LadySmith revolver well hidden away. She had at one time used it to defend herself against an attacker in Pennsylvania as she was walking home from work. (Of course I found it and played with it but fortunately my father had removed the firing pin making it non functional.)

I lived in a very peaceful time and place when I was young. It would be nice to return to those days but even though the violent crime rate in our nation has decreased to levels last seen in the late 60s, many people feel we live in a very violent society. Obviously the gun industry chooses to ignore the falling violent crime which is perhaps understandable. Of course those who support much stronger gun control also avoid this fact which again is understandable. Both sides have an agenda.

In the 50s there was little push for stronger gun control laws. The Kennedy assassinations and the death of Martin Luther King in 1968 were largely responsible for the modern gun control movement. While I am not overly fond of conspiracy theories I feel there are serious questions that can be asked about these murders. The truth may never be revealed in my lifetime, if ever.

The firearm industry has greatly profited by convincing many citizens that they need a firearm for self defense. Unfortunately those who push for strong gun control laws have also caused firearm sales to skyrocket. Every time another assault weapons ban is mentioned, such weapons fly off the shelf at gun stores. Often ammunition is hard to obtain and very expensive mainly because those who own firearms unrealistically fear that laws will be passed that make buying it far more expensive and difficult. (Somewhat like the Great Toilet Paper Shortage caused by Johnny Carson.) ref: http://baypaper.com/toiletpaper.html

Despite the fact that in the last decade or two firearm sales have skyrocketed and "victim rights" laws such as "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws have swept across our nation, the violent crime rate has decreased. To a certain extent this defies logic. Of course the pro-RKBA side attributes this drop to the forumula that more guns = less crime. I refuse to do so as there are far too many factors to consider. Still it is obvious that more guns does not equal more violent crime.

I feel that a high percentage of the violent crime in our nation is due to our failed War on Drugs. It is highly unlikely that we will change our policy on drugs in the near future and also true that the civilian ownership of firearms will not stop turf warfare between competing gangs. This is a problem which has to be dealt with by law enforcement. I personally feel that drug gangs should be treated as terrorist organizations which they are. Even if we pour money into combating such gangs, I feel we will fail. Prohibition and bans rarely work, if ever.

I don't hold Eric Holder responsible for the Fast and Furious fiasco. One thing which does lead to conspiracy theories is any effort to coverup an event. In my opinion Fast and Furious was probably a poorly conceived scheme which failed. It is only fair to thoroughly investigate any such operation in order to prevent another such mistake in the future. Unfortunately often such an investigation turns partisan and the results are questionable. Perhaps an independent commission should have been appointed but still the results may have been questioned. It's often hard, if not impossible to find the truth.

You state, "Gun lovers say, they like the ability to have a concealed gun in case something happens in say the movie theatre situation
I say to that, better security(at affordable prices for the theater owners) and making it mandatory, would get rid of the need for any gun."

I totally agree. Gun free zones do appear to attract mass murderers. The solution is simple. Any gun free zone that would attract a large number of people should be required to have good security measures and armed guards. An exception could be granted to a Mom and Pop store where the owners oppose carrying weapons. Obviously requiring the owner of a small business to provide good security would be an expensive burden. Normally such stores do not attract a large number of people at one time and would not be viewed as a good target for some mentally disturbed individual who wished to rack up a high score of kills.

In Florida when "shall issue" concealed carry passed in 1987 many establishments posted "no gun" signs. Today this is rare. Store owners who posted such sings lost business to their competitors. In some rare cases criminals took advantage of the policy. The prime factor in a business owners decision to remove the sign was that he realized that honest citizens who legally carry a firearm pose no danger and he was losing profit. Over 800,000 residents of Florida have carry permits and any wise store owner doesn't want to lose their business.

You tend to blame the power of the NRA for the failure to pass stronger gun laws and admittedly they are a very strong lobby. The NRA is often used as an excuse by those who favor stronger gun control to explain why their ideas have failed however only 4.3 million gun owners belong to the NRA out of the estimated 80 million gun owners in our nation. Membership in this organization is fairly cheap and costs less then a box or two of ammo per year. I will suggest that the true power of the pro-RKBA movement is in those 80 million gun owners who do show up at the polls to vote against anyone who threatens to take away their "rights." The NRA is indeed a strong voice for gun rights but is also a convenient whipping boy for those who favor strong gun control. If the gun control side of the debate were able to convince the majority of those who vote to support their views, the NRA would be irreverent.

Many nations have been able to impose strong gun control on their citizens. Such nations do not have the strong gun culture that exists in this nation. Overcoming this factor is a daunting task for those who favor stronger gun control.

I don't personally believe that Obama has any intention of banning or confiscating firearms in our nation as I refuse to buy into right-wing propaganda and instead look at the facts. Obama has actually been friendly to gun rights and has received an "F" rating from the Brady Campaign because he failed to pass strong gun laws in his first two years in office despite the fact that Democrats enjoyed control of both houses of Congress. Admittedly Obama did support strong gun control when he was a politician from Illinois but that is hardly surprising. Illinois is probably the most gun rights unfriendly state in the Union and in Chicago which was run by Mayor Daley at the time it would have been difficult to get elected dog catcher if you favored gun rights. I actually agree with Obama's approach to gun control as expressed in this op-ed to the Arizona Star. http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html However I would go even further and require an NICS background check for ALL sales of firearms.

I don't totally disagree with Mayor Bloomberg on all issues. He has tended to alienate a lot of people with his problem solving approach mainly because they don't wish to live in a nanny state. Perhaps one day he will take charge of the Brady Campaign and turn into a formidable opponent to the NRA.

[PavePusher]

105. Sigh..... same old same old.

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 06:25 PM - Edit history (1)

(btw, why does the NRA seemingly only back white people with guns except in some rare token instances for show.)

Huh? Examples, please? I don't think you're looking very hard, or only seeing what you want to see.

Like yeah, I am sure if the Million man march a decade ago showed the million people who were there all having guns and in full view like the tea party, yeah, like that would have been allowed to go on. Right. Sure.

Not in D.C. no, their laws don't allow it. The "tea party" people were in Virginia. They were lawful, orderly, made no overt threats, demonstrated peacefully and went home. Are you now anti-First Amendment too?

and again, what are gun people so afraid of that they need a gun?
A gun will only delay by seconds if a mob is out there.
(Think of the incidents in the mideast...do you really think if the ambassador had a gun he would have outshot all those people?

Depends on how many guns, how well they are used, and the temperment of the mob. It's worked in some instances, not in others. Just because lawful defensive force doesn't work all the time is no reason to ban it.

What is the real motive of gun people (and especially and not calling anyone here that, gun hoarders and bullet hoarders.

Bullshit. You are insinuating so fast you're burning rubber. Put it back where it came from.

Why does anyone need all those bullets?

Training, buying in bulk is more economical, and who cares. By the way, how many is "all those bullets"?

collectors of guns don't need bullets. Skeet shooters don't need real ammo in their house.
Those that go to ranges and shoot don't need to have their toys in their homes either.

Your ignorance is showing. But you knew that....

What is the real ulterior motive and worry?
And how is that on the democrat side of things?

More insinuation and "no true scotsman" fallacy. Not winning tactics around here.

P.S. Please use some correct grammar, punctuation, sentance and paragraph structure. Your posts will be more coherent and much more readable.

[PavePusher]

64. Warfgarble? n/t

[Missycim]

83. Self defense is a RIGHT before all other rights.

How are you going to defend yourself if you are 50 and you are attacked by a teenager? I would carry a gun because carrying a cop would slow me down.

[graham4anything]

87. I would give the kid my wallet, its not worth 25 years in jail

some innocent bystander has a better chance of being shot than the kid anyhow.
And if you have a gun, but the kid doesn't, pulling the gun out always has the chance that then, to protect himself or herself, the kid will get the gun and instead of just leaving with your wallet or purse, the kid will then shoot you, when he wouldn't of to start off with.

Or his friends will come back.

I recall, though not totally related, someone ran over the kid of a head mobster
and eventually that guy, even though it was totally an accident, ended up being thrown in an acid pit and painfully dying. So if the kid were part of the mafia, and you shot him, you can be sure the head Don would exact revenge.

better just to give the wallet or purse up.

and going through life worried that one will be attacked, just raises the blood pressure which could cause a stroke or heart attack

[Missycim]

89. Its not always that simple

You may want to put your life into the hands of someone who steals and robs but you HAVE NO RIGHT to force me to do the same. GOT IT? I give the same advice to people who hate womens right to choose, If you don't want a gun DONT GET ONE.

[graham4anything]

91. first the topic compares a gun and a gay person, now a gun and an abortion?

I am for abortion (or right to choose) 24/7/365 (actually want plan B or some other pill to make the whole thing totally private, and I want it to be made OTC like a piece of bubble gum with NO restrictions.

Guns on the other hand I want banned 24/7/365 and bullets should not be manufactured.
barring that, I want each bullet to cost as much as say an abortion does.

and there is a sound at the door at 3 in the morning and the gunslinger hears a noise, and grabs for the gun and promptly shoots their three year old kid who was having a bad dream and sleepwalking.

[Missycim]

93. Again please stop with your shtick

I will use simple words for you

1. if you don't want a gun don't buy one ok?

2. You don't have the right to Stop ME from getting one ok?


Simple enough for you?

[graham4anything]

95. you are correct, for today, who knows what tomorrow will bring though

just yesterday one could get a 64 ounce soda in NYC

thanks to the sensible Mayor Mike Bloomberg, now that is not possible today. (no one needs to have such a large soda, what a waste of empty calories).

so perhaps Mayor Bloomberg shall use all those billions he has for his #1 pet cause. I wish Mayor Bloomberg much success.

and he has his constitutional rights to do and say what he wishes. I wish him well.

[glacierbay]

96. You can still get a 64oz soda in NYC

despite Bloomberg's idiocy, you can walk into any 7-11 store and buy one if you want.

Are you sure you're at the right place? Who are you to decide what someone needs?

[graham4anything]

98. The law was signed yesterday, tomorrow, we can only dream

[img][/img]

someone above said there are (and who knows if the # is correct) 80 million gun owners
Well, there are 300plus million and growing in the latest census

therefore gun owners are only 25% of the nation
a small (tea party percentage) minority of the nation

what about the rights of the other 75% who are not gun owners?

Mayor Bloomberg has more money than the NRA, should he choose to spend it making sure he has candidates backs who support his side, that are now scared to go against the mighty corporationNRA.

[img][/img]

[glacierbay]

100. Didn't read the law, did you?

They were only banned in street carts, restaurants, and movie theaters, you can still buy a 64oz soda every where else that sells them, ergo, you can walk into any convenience store and still buy one.
As far as the Second Amendment, you've lost, and Blooming Idiot isn't going to spend his billions on your unrealistic dream.

[Missycim]

99. answer me this

Why is he allowed to have armed guards? and i am not allowed to protect myself?

[glacierbay]

102. Because you're not part of the 1%. nt.

[PavePusher]

106. And more warfgarble....

some innocent bystander has a better chance of being shot than the kid anyhow.
And if you have a gun, but the kid doesn't, pulling the gun out always has the chance that then, to protect himself or herself, the kid will get the gun and instead of just leaving with your wallet or purse, the kid will then shoot you, when he wouldn't of to start off with.

Stats for these claims, please? Thanks...

Or his friends will come back.

Surely that's what cops are for, right? Wait, what?!

I recall, though not totally related, someone ran over the kid of a head mobster
and eventually that guy, even though it was totally an accident, ended up being thrown in an acid pit and painfully dying. So if the kid were part of the mafia, and you shot him, you can be sure the head Don would exact revenge.

Cite to this movie, please?

better just to give the wallet or purse up.

You assume that will be all they want. Often, it isn't...

and going through life worried that one will be attacked, just raises the blood pressure which could cause a stroke or heart attack

You assume I'm the "worrying" type. Simply taking certain precautions does not equal "worrying". But thanks for your concern, it's very touching. Perhaps you should consider your own worrying, and the statistical likelyhood of being accidently shot by a lawfully armed person, and the health concerns you have raised.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. Here are 47 videos of people using guns to save themselves.

Many of those saves were by CCW permit holdsrs.

&feature=autoplay&list=PLA5854FE4A5A73C2C&playnext=1

Here are 34 more saves. I don't know how much overlap there is between the above post and this one.

[spayneuter]

77. Whatever you are smoking doesn't seem to be doing what you wanted it to.

But where the hell were you when those 3 guys started chasing me and my BF down the street, with baseball bats in their hands and murder on their minds...who only backed off when they saw my (legal) .357 magnum as I opened up my jacket. You could have reasoned with them and saved them from minutes or maybe hours of mental distress!

[jody]

17. You have opened six OPs on the same topic. Why don't you pose a single issue and consider

pro and con arguments? Your OP subjects are as follows:

This is the danger the anti-2A people bring to the Democratic Party

Some people dislike gays, others dislike guns. We should not base our laws on personal dislikes.

The Liberal Gun Club.

Gun Loving Liberal – Gun advocacy from the left!

Pro Gun Liberals

Ultimately this whole thread is offensive.

[Remmah2]

26. Why? Is there a board rule?

The last one you list has nothing to do with the former, it was posted weeks ago.

[jody]

33. I don't believe there is such a rule. IMO replies to one of your OPs could also address the others.

IMO the major question is whether individuals have natural. inherent, unalienable/inalienable rights that according to our Constitution government is required to protect or whether there are no rights, only privileges granted by government.

IMO that is a conflict between sovereign individuals and a totalitarian government.

I don't mean to hijack your OP, just curious about your intent.

[shadowrider]

63. There is an anti-gun poster who at one time had 27 OP's on the front page

I'll wait till you scold him for his anti-gun, non related, threads.

[jody]

73. I did not mean to scold anyone. Just lost when trying to follow so many OPs with a common issue.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. WOW ...

Who knew our gun laws were based in our dislike of guns?

I always thought our gun laws were/are based on their propensity to, when used as intended, cause death or injury.

[4th law of robotics]

42. When you push for laws banning guns with bayonet lugs

despite bayonetings being exceedingly rare among civilians then it's reasonable for people to assume you're basing that on emotion rather than hard statistics.

If we were to eliminate all drive by gang related bayonet attacks how many lives would be saved?

I'm guessing between 0 and 0.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Okay ...

I guess there is a certain logic there. But I don't think it touches on the "Like/Dislike" distinction posed in the OP.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

111. In CA that is clearly the case. The laws here are that bad.

If it has a wood stock it is fine, but black composite stock makes it evil.

/s/
A large black man with a gun

[Speck Tater]

51. I have no problem with people who take out their guns in their own bedroom

It's when they take them out and flash them in public that I worry.

[glacierbay]

53. If I see someone "flash their gun in public"

I will arrest them if I determine that it is a case of brandishing.

[PavePusher]

66. And this happens... how often? n/t

[spin]

107. In Florida brandishing a firearm is illegal even if you have a carry permit. (n/t)

[liberallibral]

52. Some people dislike ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, too.....

... and want to igniore those laws........

[spin]

109. Our current immigration laws need a major overhaul. ...

Many honest hard working people illegally enter the United States at great risk and expense in order to find opportunity.

I fault both Democrats and Republicans for the failure to implement changes to our law. This is one of many issues where both parties could compromise and work together. Of course the rise of the Tea Party makes such compromise highly unlikely.

Our nation should welcome immigrants and offer them the chance to succeed. We will be far stronger in the future if we do so. Our nation is and should be a great melting pot.