Congressional Sit In

[FLAVALK]

I guess it's time to post this Bill Whittle video again. Hopefully some of those who need to see it will watch it and heed it's lessons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

Liberals don't like facts. Don't make them do a Snopes on 'ol Bill.......  

[MP]

I agree.  Most people are fools.

We are in complete agreement.

Apparently that rather large majority may indeed include you and me.   

Me too.  Me too!  Can I join?  I want to be in the Club!

Maybe I already am!!   

[Lyonardo]

I'm a gun owner. I don't have any illusion that my guns would be used for self defense because they're in a case, and secured with trigger locks until I take them to the range. If someone works up enough nerve to take me on, my guns are the least of their worries.

When I bought each of my firearms I had to read through some material spelling out local gun rules, wait for two weeks, take a written test, and agree to a background check. Still it was less effort than it took to get a drivers license in that same city. Sure, it would've been nice to get my property sooner, but I was fine with waiting and thought it was a good idea.
None of the proposals put out there effect my 2nd amendment rights.
I have a buddy who went out and spent good money on an assault rifle, as far as I can tell, for no other reason than to spite Obama (or do I have to pronounce that O-bum-a in order to post here?) He had no interest in owning one before then.
I don't get it.
Let's pass some laws that at least attempt to keep our kids safer AND own the guns we want. We can do both... it doesn't have to be an either or thing.

On the latest national report from the FBI, 75% of homicides were committed with a firearm.  The percentage had dipped to 67% in 2011, but is back up in recent years.


The figures quoted earlier were all deaths by any cause, not just homicides (intentional killings).  

Now take the total homicides by firearm, and subtract all homicides by criminal on criminal in all the big cities (and elsewhere), nearly all of which are committed with firearms which were already illegal when purchased illegally/stolen and used.  The biggest cities alone (collectively) likely account for a lion's share of total firearm homicides.  And of course, all these cities have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the normal country has (which clearly aren't slowing anybody down).  So how will leaning on honest harry homeowner about his perfectly legal guns help at all??????  

And relatively few are with ARs.  

[Moonshot_1]

I'm a gun owner. I don't have any illusion that my guns would be used for self defense because they're in a case, and secured with trigger locks until I take them to the range. If someone works up enough nerve to take me on, my guns are the least of their worries.

When I bought each of my firearms I had to read through some material spelling out local gun rules, wait for two weeks, take a written test, and agree to a background check. Still it was less effort than it took to get a drivers license in that same city. Sure, it would've been nice to get my property sooner, but I was fine with waiting and thought it was a good idea.
None of the proposals put out there effect my 2nd amendment rights.
I have a buddy who went out and spent good money on an assault rifle, as far as I can tell, for no other reason than to spite Obama (or do I have to pronounce that O-bum-a in order to post here?) He had no interest in owning one before then.
I don't get it.
Let's pass some laws that at least attempt to keep our kids safer AND own the guns we want. We can do both... it doesn't have to be an either or thing.

You don’t get it? Let me see if I can help out here.

There are 2 universes involved here. The universe of the Law abiding and the universe of the criminal.
You see a 2 week wait, a written test, and a background check to be ok and a good idea.
In the universe of the Law abiding, the people follow the law and some don’t mind if more are passed in an attempt to make things better.

In the universe of the criminal the laws do not matter. There are no 2 week waits, tests, background checks or any other law or rule you would attempt to apply.

So your attempt to pass some more laws will have the effect of restricting the rights of and affecting the people who we have no issues with whatsoever. They already abide by the law.

In the normal course of events, guns are not an issue in daily life. Having them in a safe and locked away is fine. Having no illusions about using them for your defense because of that is understandable.

But things are not always normal. And this is the ultimate point of all this. I recall the riots in LA after the Officers were acquitted in the Rodney King case. The Korean shop owners on their roofs with AK-47s defending their lives and property because the local PD was overwhelmed.

Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, political unrest, and the other occasional abnormal and terrifying times that are yet to be, should they come your way and things go terribly awry, are your weapons to continue to be locked up in the face of such things when the government and law enforcement are simply overwhelmed?

I’d bet not.

What laws can be passed that have a direct effect within the Criminal Universe?
Not many really. And most would address the punishment aspect not the preventative. Remember, we are looking at affecting the Criminal Universe not the Law Abiding one. We don’t need to affect the law abiding. They are not the problem.

But if you want to affect the Law Abiding Universe, make laws that strengthen the law abiding to defend themselves, make it easier for the law abiding to arm themselves, give the law abiding incentives to get more defensive training.

I’d like to see a real but basic self-defense and firearm training course as a required course in High School.
Or we can continue the self-esteem counseling and give them a lollipop and condom.

The vast majority of the bad guys are cowards. They go and shoot places up where the people will normally not shoot back

My thought is really fairly simple
I want the bad guys to FEAR the good guys in our society. Not the other way around.
Pretty sure the good guys won’t have a problem with that. I want the bad guys to know that the open season is over and there will be hell fire to pay.

The Law Abiding are NOT the problem.

[Serk]

Gun control kills.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/10/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-waiting-for-gun-permit.html

[Lyonardo]

I don't plan on getting into an internet-argument. I know I won't change any opinions here.
Sometimes crazy idiots crash unto the sidewalk and mow down innocent pedestrians with their car. In that case, stop signs didn't stop the nutjob from committing a crime.
Does that mean we get rid of all stop signs? No, as a society we continue to put up stop signs, lights, and crosswalks. We hire crossing guards at our schools, and we teach our kids to look both ways.
We try every approach we can so our kids don't get run over. Does that mean we are taking away people's right to own cars? No. It doesn't.
But we are wise enough to try ways to make our kids safe.
If someone has a history of getting drunk and crashing, guess what? They lose their right to drive.
Great idea!

You don’t get it? Let me see if I can help out here.

There are 2 universes involved here. The universe of the Law abiding and the universe of the criminal.
You see a 2 week wait, a written test, and a background check to be ok and a good idea.
In the universe of the Law abiding, the people follow the law and some don’t mind if more are passed in an attempt to make things better.

In the universe of the criminal the laws do not matter. There are no 2 week waits, tests, background checks or any other law or rule you would attempt to apply.

So your attempt to pass some more laws will have the effect of restricting the rights of and affecting the people who we have no issues with whatsoever. They already abide by the law.

In the normal course of events, guns are not an issue in daily life. Having them in a safe and locked away is fine. Having no illusions about using them for your defense because of that is understandable.

But things are not always normal. And this is the ultimate point of all this. I recall the riots in LA after the Officers were acquitted in the Rodney King case. The Korean shop owners on their roofs with AK-47s defending their lives and property because the local PD was overwhelmed.

Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, political unrest, and the other occasional abnormal and terrifying times that are yet to be, should they come your way and things go terribly awry, are your weapons to continue to be locked up in the face of such things when the government and law enforcement are simply overwhelmed?

I’d bet not.

What laws can be passed that have a direct effect within the Criminal Universe?
Not many really. And most would address the punishment aspect not the preventative. Remember, we are looking at affecting the Criminal Universe not the Law Abiding one. We don’t need to affect the law abiding. They are not the problem.

But if you want to affect the Law Abiding Universe, make laws that strengthen the law abiding to defend themselves, make it easier for the law abiding to arm themselves, give the law abiding incentives to get more defensive training.

I’d like to see a real but basic self-defense and firearm training course as a required course in High School.
Or we can continue the self-esteem counseling and give them a lollipop and condom.

The vast majority of the bad guys are cowards. They go and shoot places up where the people will normally not shoot back

My thought is really fairly simple
I want the bad guys to FEAR the good guys in our society. Not the other way around.
Pretty sure the good guys won’t have a problem with that. I want the bad guys to know that the open season is over and there will be hell fire to pay.

The Law Abiding are NOT the problem.

[Willow]

I don't plan on getting into an internet-argument. I know I won't change any opinions here.
Sometimes crazy idiots crash unto the sidewalk and mow down innocent pedestrians with their car. In that case, stop signs didn't stop the nutjob from committing a crime.
Does that mean we get rid of all stop signs? No, as a society we continue to put up stop signs, lights, and crosswalks. We hire crossing guards at our schools, and we teach our kids to look both ways.
We try every approach we can so our kids don't get run over. Does that mean we are taking away people's right to own cars? No. It doesn't.
But we are wise enough to try ways to make our kids safe.
If someone has a history of getting drunk and crashing, guess what? They lose their right to drive.
Great idea!  

I'm with you on avoiding an internet argument, or are we?

Interesting logic but you're trying to apply something that is not remotely related.  Stop signs assist law abiding drivers in interacting with more dependability.  Can you think of any gun restriction law that does that?  Every gun restriction law I have heard of is intent on simply keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.  I'm with you on protecting our children.  Perhaps getting on board with early and responsible gun education that would cause parents to keep guns out of the hands of their children until they are old enough and trained enough to handle them.  Those are parents' responsibilities, not the state's.

While we're at it. if we're really concerned for our children's safety we need to get on the bandwagon for automobile controlling measures.  The number of young children injured or killed by guns is minuscule in relation to those injured and killed by irresponsible use of automobiles.

Protecting our children arguers regularly point back to the New England school murders.  Those folks easily ignore that the alleged killer had already broken multiple laws including the murder of his own mother.  I don't see any reasonable law that would have stopped him from doing that so long as there was something; gun, bomb or whatever, that he could have murdered and stolen.

The best solution to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

Your last statement is telling.  Drivers who have lost their driving privileges because of drunk driving still drive and still kill people.  What are we going to do?

[Lyonardo]

Willow, we do what we can. We work on a solution until we find something that works.  What we don't do is just say "screw it" and accept that we're helpless to stop the killing. That's not how smart, resourceful men approach a problem. Men find a way to fix things. That's how lots of us make our living, whether whether we're mechanics or IT guys.

You mentioned we should get to work on car safety measures... we as a society have, and still are!
Anti-lock brakes, air bags, horns, collision detection that stops your car from crashing, doors that lock when you start moving so no one falls out, traction control, etc... We never stop trying to make cars safer because we're not going to let anyone take our right to drive away. We can do both at the same time with cars and guns.

Protect our rights AND create some rules that make sense. Not one or the other. Both.

I will never agree with this reasoning: "some people will always ignore rules, so it's useless to make ANY rules". Our nation is built upon the rule of law. We have courts, cops, etc. to enforce those rules. If someone breaks them, we deal with it. If a rule is bad, we make an effort to change it. That's what society is.
 

I'm with you on avoiding an internet argument, or are we?

Interesting logic but you're trying to apply something that is not remotely related.  Stop signs assist law abiding drivers in interacting with more dependability.  Can you think of any gun restriction law that does that?  Every gun restriction law I have heard of is intent on simply keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.  I'm with you on protecting our children.  Perhaps getting on board with early and responsible gun education that would cause parents to keep guns out of the hands of their children until they are old enough and trained enough to handle them.  Those are parents' responsibilities, not the state's.

While we're at it. if we're really concerned for our children's safety we need to get on the bandwagon for automobile controlling measures.  The number of young children injured or killed by guns is minuscule in relation to those injured and killed by irresponsible use of automobiles.

Protecting our children arguers regularly point back to the New England school murders.  Those folks easily ignore that the alleged killer had already broken multiple laws including the murder of his own mother.  I don't see any reasonable law that would have stopped him from doing that so long as there was something; gun, bomb or whatever, that he could have murdered and stolen.

The best solution to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

Your last statement is telling.  Drivers who have lost their driving privileges because of drunk driving still drive and still kill people.  What are we going to do?

[Moonshot_1]

I don't plan on getting into an internet-argument. I know I won't change any opinions here.
Sometimes crazy idiots crash unto the sidewalk and mow down innocent pedestrians with their car. In that case, stop signs didn't stop the nutjob from committing a crime.
Does that mean we get rid of all stop signs? No, as a society we continue to put up stop signs, lights, and crosswalks. We hire crossing guards at our schools, and we teach our kids to look both ways.
We try every approach we can so our kids don't get run over. Does that mean we are taking away people's right to own cars? No. It doesn't.
But we are wise enough to try ways to make our kids safe.
If someone has a history of getting drunk and crashing, guess what? They lose their right to drive.
Great idea!

You don’t get it? Let me see if I can help out here.

There are 2 universes involved here. The universe of the Law abiding and the universe of the criminal.
You see a 2 week wait, a written test, and a background check to be ok and a good idea.
In the universe of the Law abiding, the people follow the law and some don’t mind if more are passed in an attempt to make things better.

In the universe of the criminal the laws do not matter. There are no 2 week waits, tests, background checks or any other law or rule you would attempt to apply.

So your attempt to pass some more laws will have the effect of restricting the rights of and affecting the people who we have no issues with whatsoever. They already abide by the law.

In the normal course of events, guns are not an issue in daily life. Having them in a safe and locked away is fine. Having no illusions about using them for your defense because of that is understandable.

But things are not always normal. And this is the ultimate point of all this. I recall the riots in LA after the Officers were acquitted in the Rodney King case. The Korean shop owners on their roofs with AK-47s defending their lives and property because the local PD was overwhelmed.

Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, political unrest, and the other occasional abnormal and terrifying times that are yet to be, should they come your way and things go terribly awry, are your weapons to continue to be locked up in the face of such things when the government and law enforcement are simply overwhelmed?

I’d bet not.

What laws can be passed that have a direct effect within the Criminal Universe?
Not many really. And most would address the punishment aspect not the preventative. Remember, we are looking at affecting the Criminal Universe not the Law Abiding one. We don’t need to affect the law abiding. They are not the problem.

But if you want to affect the Law Abiding Universe, make laws that strengthen the law abiding to defend themselves, make it easier for the law abiding to arm themselves, give the law abiding incentives to get more defensive training.

I’d like to see a real but basic self-defense and firearm training course as a required course in High School.
Or we can continue the self-esteem counseling and give them a lollipop and condom.

The vast majority of the bad guys are cowards. They go and shoot places up where the people will normally not shoot back

My thought is really fairly simple
I want the bad guys to FEAR the good guys in our society. Not the other way around.
Pretty sure the good guys won’t have a problem with that. I want the bad guys to know that the open season is over and there will be hell fire to pay.

The Law Abiding are NOT the problem.

Actually, they lose their privilege to drive on public roadways. Not their right to drive.

[Moonshot_1]

I will never agree with this reasoning: "some people will always ignore rules, so it's useless to make ANY rules". Our nation is built upon the rule of law. We have courts, cops, etc. to enforce those rules. If someone breaks them, we deal with it. If a rule is bad, we make an effort to change it. That's what society is.

You are still missing the point. It is useless to make any USELESS rules and that is the direction things tend to go.

We already have laws against Murder.
Laws against Felons having firearms.
Laws against Armed Robbery.

You want laws, we got tons of 'em already
.
Passing more gun control laws that focus on the law abiding and not the criminal is, by definition, useless in stopping gun violence. The law abiding, by definition, do not commit gun crimes.

I rather see laws focused on aiding the law abiding in their RIGHT of self defense.

What the law abiding, gun rights folks cannot get is the perspective that if we pass gun control law after gun control law and continue to pile on regulations and rules, that somehow the criminals will have to eventually abide by them.

It simply defies logic and reality.

[art]

Watching them marching down the stairs singing we shall overcome was a joke. And Hilldabeast saying Trump not fit to be president while under FBI investigation DUH what about her. She's nuts.

[MP]

Willow, we do what we can. We work on a solution until we find something that works.  What we don't do is just say "screw it" and accept that we're helpless to stop the killing. That's not how smart, resourceful men approach a problem. Men find a way to fix things. That's how lots of us make our living, whether whether we're mechanics or IT guys.

You mentioned we should get to work on car safety measures... we as a society have, and still are!
Anti-lock brakes, air bags, horns, collision detection that stops your car from crashing, doors that lock when you start moving so no one falls out, traction control, etc... We never stop trying to make cars safer because we're not going to let anyone take our right to drive away. We can do both at the same time with cars and guns.

Protect our rights AND create some rules that make sense. Not one or the other. Both.

I will never agree with this reasoning: "some people will always ignore rules, so it's useless to make ANY rules". Our nation is built upon the rule of law. We have courts, cops, etc. to enforce those rules. If someone breaks them, we deal with it. If a rule is bad, we make an effort to change it. That's what society is.
 

I'm with you on avoiding an internet argument, or are we?

Interesting logic but you're trying to apply something that is not remotely related.  Stop signs assist law abiding drivers in interacting with more dependability.  Can you think of any gun restriction law that does that?  Every gun restriction law I have heard of is intent on simply keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.  I'm with you on protecting our children.  Perhaps getting on board with early and responsible gun education that would cause parents to keep guns out of the hands of their children until they are old enough and trained enough to handle them.  Those are parents' responsibilities, not the state's.

While we're at it. if we're really concerned for our children's safety we need to get on the bandwagon for automobile controlling measures.  The number of young children injured or killed by guns is minuscule in relation to those injured and killed by irresponsible use of automobiles.

Protecting our children arguers regularly point back to the New England school murders.  Those folks easily ignore that the alleged killer had already broken multiple laws including the murder of his own mother.  I don't see any reasonable law that would have stopped him from doing that so long as there was something; gun, bomb or whatever, that he could have murdered and stolen.

The best solution to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

Your last statement is telling.  Drivers who have lost their driving privileges because of drunk driving still drive and still kill people.  What are we going to do?

Your way does NOT work.  Been proven.  You say we can do both.  I agree.  However, where we, and others here, differ, is in the solution.

We are NOT saying "Do Nothing".  We ARE saying pass laws that target the bad guy, not the citizen.

Much more stringent straw buyer laws. Why is it under Obama that prosecutions of straw purchasers and of those who commit crimes in lying on gun permit and back ground check applications, have gone WAY DOWN?  Why is this administration failing to ENFORCE the laws as written?  Makes me wonder if they actually want MORE murders, so they can scream to limit guns.

 More time in jail for having a gun in a crime.  More time for breaking the law.  

Encouragement for law abiding citizens to get trained and carry.

Classes for training people to carry.  Classes in school teaching both safety, and how to shoot.  Self defense classes in school and beyond in both firearm AND other self defense methods.

These would actually do good, WITHOUT punishing the law abiding.  Actually rewarding them.

But, anti gunners NEVER propose these things.  They ONLY propose laws that both punish the law abiding, and have been proven to be failures.

Do you agree?

[Jess from VA]

Drivers who have lost their driving privileges because of drunk driving still drive and still kill people.  What are we going to do?

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.  And no 30 years on death row till he's got no teeth left.

[Willow]

Willow, we do what we can. We work on a solution until we find something that works.  What we don't do is just say "screw it" and accept that we're helpless to stop the killing. That's not how smart, resourceful men approach a problem. Men find a way to fix things. That's how lots of us make our living, whether whether we're mechanics or IT guys.
...
Protect our rights AND create some rules that make sense. Not one or the other. Both.

I will never agree with this reasoning: "some people will always ignore rules, so it's useless to make ANY rules". Our nation is built upon the rule of law. We have courts, cops, etc. to enforce those rules. If someone breaks them, we deal with it. If a rule is bad, we make an effort to change it. That's what society is.

Lyonardo, apparently you either didn't bother reading what I had to say or were unable to comprehend it.   I'm pretty sure I didn't say, "Some people will always ignore rules, so it's useless to make ANY rules."  If I had said something along that line it would have sounded more like it doesn't help to make stupid rules that only limit the ones who are not really the problem.

Protect our rights AND create some rules that make sense?  Any rules, whether they make sense to someone or not, that place limitations on our rights are steps down a slippery slope.  Within the scope of the gun control enthusiasts' rules that make sense to them it simply isn't possible to do what you say must be done.   

Trial and error as you describe it whether we are mechanics or IT guys only works if we are generally headed in the correct direction.  As a very experienced IT guy I can tell you that if a programmer embarks on trial and error rather than study and apply he will never get a program working correctly if he starts it in the wrong direction.

One other thing.  We ARE helpless to stop the killing.  We are not helpless to limit the killing.  What a stupid, stupid people we are to think that declaring no guns allowed in a drinking establishment would somehow stop or limit an deranged Islamic terrorist from doing what he did in Orlando.  What a wise people we would have been to realize that fewer people would have died if ten percent of the people inside that establishment had been carrying their own firearms.  If we continue to close our eyes and throw darts I'm pretty sure we're not going to get any closer to the bull's eye. 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this particular subject.  I'm satisfied with my applied logic and I'm sure you are with yours.  One of us is dead wrong.  I'll walk away knowing that.  If I'm the one who is wrong I'm good with that.   

[Rams]

Ask any LEO how many people they pull over are driving on a suspended license or don't even have a license.    The rule of law has little effect on those who have no intention of following it.   Making more laws or placing additional restrictions on any activity only effects those who respect and follow the law.

Anyone who fails to understand that probably believes that locks will protect their property from thieves when in truth, those locks only protect their property from honest folks and stupid thieves.

[Jess from VA]

If someone breaks them (laws), we deal with it.

Ahhh, but we don't as often as we do.  We often don't ever apprehend them, or even know who they are.  Or we allow a plea agreement to some misdemeanor with no meaningful sentence.  Or we hire a dream team and get away with murder.  Or a judge orders them released for overcrowding so short of their minimum sentence, that we wasted our money even prosecuting them.  Or we find prosecuting this or that so repugnant to our workload or politics, that we establish a policy of no prosecutions at all.  Or.... I can keep going, but won't.

We are very lucky to have a constitution with a laundry list of individual personal liberties.  We should never allow them to be nickel and dimed away.  We fought a bloody war to get them, and a number of additional bloody wars to keep them.  Giving them away for nothing more than a perception of safety is bloody stupid.

[RP#62]

If someone breaks them (laws), we deal with it.

Ahhh, but we don't as often as we do.  We often don't ever apprehend them, or even know who they are.  Or we allow a plea agreement to some misdemeanor with no meaningful sentence.  Or we hire a dream team and get away with murder.  Or a judge orders them released for overcrowding so short of their minimum sentence, that we wasted our money even prosecuting them.  Or we find prosecuting this or that so repugnant to our workload or politics, that we establish a policy of no prosecutions at all.  Or.... I can keep going, but won't.

We are very lucky to have a constitution with a laundry list of individual personal liberties.  We should never allow them to be nickel and dimed away.  We fought a bloody war to get them, and a number of additional bloody wars to keep them.  Giving them away for nothing more than a perception of safety is bloody stupid.

We have millions in this country illegally (i.e. they have broken the law) and not only do we not deal with it, the government sues those that try to.

-RP

[..]

All 26 Democrats In The “Sit-In” Are Gun Owners…

http://thetruthdivision.com/2016/06/the-irony-all-26-democrats-in-the-sit-in-are-gun-owners-heres-the-list/

Yet some will still support them.

[Serk]

All 26 Democrats In The “Sit-In” Are Gun Owners…

http://thetruthdivision.com/2016/06/the-irony-all-26-democrats-in-the-sit-in-are-gun-owners-heres-the-list/

Yet some will still support them.

That just means they'll utter the infamous phrase "I'm a gun owner, but........."

Damed FUDDs...

[Jess from VA]

We have millions in this country illegally (i.e. they have broken the law) and not only do we not deal with it, the government sues those that try to. 

RP

It is really and truly an Orwellian.... Through the looking glass time in this country.    

[Rams]

Protect our rights AND create some rules that make sense. Not one or the other. Both.

I will never agree with this reasoning: "some people will always ignore rules, so it's useless to make ANY rules". Our nation is built upon the rule of law. We have courts, cops, etc. to enforce those rules. If someone breaks them, we deal with it. If a rule is bad, we make an effort to change it. That's what society is.
 

Sir,
I agree, this discussion is really a waste of time for the vast majority of readers.   Most folks have made up their minds and even undenialable facts will not change their minds.   I don't understand how you're going to protect my rights to self defense and still protect my (and everyone else's 2nd Amendment Rights) while suggesting laws that only effect law abiding citizens.     Consider any law or rule/regulation.   Every one gets broken even when/if the "government"  enforces it or, the reward outweighs the penalty.    One must get caught and convicted before the penalty even becomes a factor to criminals but, you suggest that more laws regulating my rights defend myself and you are some how the way to go.   This train of thought makes no sense to me.   I don't even have a gun but, I sure as hell won't give up the right to have one, for your and/or my protection.

I have tried to be a law abiding and contributing citizen my entire life, for the most part, I have been successful.   Why anyone would wish to make me a criminal is quite frankly, beyond me.    My rights to self-defense may have averted a needless loss of life and sure as hell won't benefit anyone intent to harm me or my family, I hold no ill will toward anyone but, will defend my family and those whom I care about to the fullest extent of my ability.      The Liberal perspective of alerting the police who are only 45 minutes to an hour away in my time of need is not an acceptable answer to me.

[ridingron]

  If someone has a history of getting drunk and crashing, guess what? They lose their right to drive.
Great idea! 

This one of the funniest things I've read so far! As I told my mother regarding my brother, "Do you really think that not having that little piece of plastic coated paper in his pocket will stop him from driving?"

The thought process works for so many examples. Their mind is made up. They are going to break the law. What's another law along the way? Apply it to illegal immigration, robbing a bank, drive by shooting, dope dealing, ... .

[Lyonardo]

As I stated earlier, I AM a gun owner. I bought my guns in a city/state that required background checks, a waiting period, and a written test on gun safety. My constitutional right to own a gun is exactly the same as yours, and that right was never threatened.
As you said, we're not going to convince each other on this. Still... reasonable, intelligent people discussing important issues is always a good thing! We can disagree without demonizing each other. Right?
L

Sir,
I agree, this discussion is really a waste of time for the vast majority of readers.   Most folks have made up their minds and even undenialable facts will not change their minds.   I don't understand how you're going to protect my rights to self defense and still protect my (and everyone else's 2nd Amendment Rights) while suggesting laws that only effect law abiding citizens.     Consider any law or rule/regulation.   Every one gets broken even when/if the "government"  enforces it or, the reward outweighs the penalty.    One must get caught and convicted before the penalty even becomes a factor to criminals but, you suggest that more laws regulating my rights defend myself and you are some how the way to go.   This train of thought makes no sense to me.   I don't even have a gun but, I sure as hell won't give up the right to have one, for your and/or my protection.

I have tried to be a law abiding and contributing citizen my entire life, for the most part, I have been successful.   Why anyone would wish to make me a criminal is quite frankly, beyond me.    My rights to self-defense may have averted a needless loss of life and sure as hell won't benefit anyone intent to harm me or my family, I hold no ill will toward anyone but, will defend my family and those whom I care about to the fullest extent of my ability.      The Liberal perspective of alerting the police who are only 45 minutes to an hour away in my time of need is not an acceptable answer to me.

[Serk]

Interesting factoid, when we say "Criminals don't register guns" that's not just opinion, that's law... SCOTUS decreed that gun registration laws don' apply to criminals.

The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[Jess from VA]

Interesting factoid, when we say "Criminals don't register guns" that's not just opinion, that's law... SCOTUS decreed that gun registration laws don' apply to criminals.

The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

By the same reasoning... that compelling people to report this or register that, or pay a tax on something else, a number of similar decisions essentially prevented prosecutions for failure to comply by criminals and especially organized crime, as complying amounted to forced self incrimination, prohibited under the fifth amendment.  (Not forced by a rubber hose, but by complying with a law)

I'm not looking it up, but it may have started out with untaxed liquor and Prohibition.