There should be no laws at all.

Anarchy FTW!

...did anyone advocate for no laws at all?

I've looked back over it a couple of times now, and it just doesn't seem to be there.

I guess when one can't come up with a cogent response to what was actually said, they have to reply to things that no one said at all. Not a particularly honest or persuasive tactic, but when it's all you've got.

I know, maybe if you edit it creatively, you can get it to say what you wanted it to say, instead of what it actually said -- that seems to be the new anti-rights activist strategy.

If the only reason for laws is to STOP crime and laws DON'T stop crime and the "obvious" answer to this dilemma is to remove laws, then all laws should be removed.

We do agree however that a large number of gun owners are lawless criminals.

So that's a start.

Rather than reply to what was actually said, you continue to respond to things not said. Simple, indeed.

In fact, you have gone on now to attribute to me a statement I never made.

Again, not a particularly honest tactic on your part, but I understand if it's the best you are capable of.

What I said is the ONLY logical extention of your nonsensical post.

It's why people stopped posting this ridiculous meme years ago. Well... Most people.

It is now logical to attribute to others statements that they never made...?

That's a pretty radical interpretation of the word -- but, again, if such dishonest arguments are the best that you can muster, I can understand why you stick with them.

Have a great holiday weekend.

No -- reductio ad absurdum. Look up malum in se and malum prohibitum and I think you'll see why it's futile to attempt to curb criminal behavior by regulating the possession of firearms. Creating new classes of criminals out of hitherto law-abiding citizens is not the way.

Is that it means that people would still be getting shot if there were no guns.

And that's not true.

Guns as tools are different. They make killing much easier and more efficient. America has a propensity for violence. Extreme violence and when you mix that with guns you get mass murder.

It's not just guns or just Americans. But together you get 300,000 people shot dead in a decade.

And obviously if you remove all guns the number of people killed by guns will... Drop dramatically.

Half ass gun control doesn't work either. Either accept thousands of dead kids a year or get rid of guns.

... you can do better than that. It means nothing of the kind. Your leaps into the realm of the absurd are stunning.

It means that without guns, plenty of people could and would still be violently victimized. You wouldn't be doing a thing to address that.

Let's imagine for a moment that you could pass legislation banning private ownership of firearms in the US. When you're all done with the buybacks and the turn-'em-ins and the like, who's still going to have firearms? Cops and criminals. If that thought makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, then perhaps you're not as progressive as you think you are.


200,000 of those are suicides. If you think that guns promote suicide, check out the comparative suicide rates for the US and Japan, the gun-controllers dream society.


A pointless tautology.


False dichotomy: much could be done through safety training, which most of your ilk oppose because it "legitimizes" gun ownership. The perfect is the enemy of the good, especially when it is unattainable.

Good luck.

but guns can't be uninvented.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/drive-by-shooting-up-by-41-per-cent/story-e6frg6nf-1226329985537
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-10/police-hunt-gunman-following-sunshine-west-drive-by-shooting/7235220
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-30/drive-by-shooting-at-brothel-in-melbourne's-inner-south/7283264
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/gunsmith-leon-james-baird-jailed-for-manufacturing-supplying-firearms-able-to-shoot-up-to-600-rounds-a-minute/news-story/f8f17d439488313548ae3274442284a2
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/nsw-takes-aim-at-black-market-gun-trade/news-story/f0932a927ce2f81a6272405c9e1c7f9e

The easiest gun to make is a zip gun. The second easiest home made gun is an open bolt machine gun.
Do you seriously think all murders are shootings, and murders would end if guns simply disappeared?

Heroin has been banned for something like a century. Last year there were more heroin deaths than murders.

Why would you think that the only reason for a law would be to prevent a crime?

That's the context. The law doesn't stop the criminal therefore gun control is stupid.

Here's a list of assumptions that are illogical:
1. Laws prevent crime
2. Specifically, gun-control laws will prevent crime with guns


Rape, robbery and murder have been against so many laws in so many states and countries for so long, you would think that these would have been eliminated. They haven't.

Laws provide a standard for the justice to use a criteria for judging guilt.
Laws principally provide a guide for the honest and just to remain so.

The most basic idea behind our justice system is to limit the ability of those proven guilty to continue victimizing the general population. In criminal trials the standard is that a guilty verdict be one arrived at beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fix the system, find a way to limit or eliminate racism, classism... from the arrest and adjudication phase. Refusing to affix a just sentence because the conviction process is flawed is pointless. That's like deciding to walk (rather than drive) to the game because you can't park in the dugout.

The purpose of laws is not to STOP criminal behavior, it is to DEFINE criminal behavior.

That is why so many gun control proposals fail, or suddenly develop "loopholes" when people comply with the terms of the law. Those who proposed bills wanted to stop some behavior but all they do is define something they dislike. They then get upset when people are able to continue acting within the bounds of the law of the proposed. For example look at California's attempt to outlaw the so-called assault rifles.

The meme in the OP clearly shows a criminal who is not being stopped by a law. That's the context. It has nothing to do with failed half-assed gun control.

perhaps you have heard of it?

I've never heard of sarcasm.

I would never recognize sarcasm. Ever.

this video can teach you.

laws rules for a society. Nothing more, nothing less. Violating those rules are crimes. If there were no laws, there would be no crime. If there is no law against it, it isn't a crime. Growing and smoking pot wasn't a crime, on the federal level at least, until 1937. A few states made it illegal before then.

only if you count gangbangers and drug dealers as gun owners.

And you gotta lol at the idea that only gangbangers and drug dealers kill people with guns.

just almost all.

But sure show your data.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm
http://www.jurist.org/forum/2013/02/don-kates-crimonology-firearms.php

And that those individuals should lose both their firearms and their freedom. Getting guns out of the hands of those who have been convicted of violent crimes would go a long way towards limiting gun violence. I'd also like to see the "war on drugs" scaled back and major funds and resources put into alleviating poverty, both of which would make a major difference in violence and make this country a bit more progressive.

The point of laws is to punish crime after is has been committed, to offer a legal recourse.

Laws that venture away from that purpose into "prevention" territory, are frequently useless for that purpose, and regularly ensnare and limit those who aren't a problem, and who no legal recourse is really needed against.

Of course the war on drugs bunch disagrees with that whole heartedly, just like you are sure to do.

Gun control advocates believe that creating new acts of malum prohibitum will somehow prevent some or most acts of malum in se. That reasoning is what separates laws against reckless driving, robbery, and murder from the nonsense contained in most gun control proposals.

And another version of a gun is a tool.

Americans has shown that en masses they are incapable of safely owning guns. Every 5-6 weeks as many Americans die at the end of a gun as died on 9/11. If the same was true of knives then people would demand knife control. If it was true of cheese, cheese would have been outlawed years ago.

Not all tools are created equal and some tools should be outlawed - or at least stringently regulated - even if they have legitimate uses. Which handguns do not.

Less than 1 percent of Americans misuse guns resulting in death or injury.

That shows that en masse , Americans are very capable of owning guns, and that its a tiny minority who are not.

Facts beat your hyperbole. Every time.



Your opinion, and the fact that it does not include self defense as a 'legitimate' use of a handgun, are noted.

no country in the world has gun crime like America. It's obviously the exception. It doesn't matter if a lot of non-violent Americans have to suffer because of a few (relatively speaking) violent people. As a society America suffers greatly because of guns. And the only reasonable solution is a complete ban.

Self-defence is not a legitimate use. Ask Europeans who suffer from almost no gun crime if they'd trade thousands of people dead at the end of a gun per year for access to guns for self-defence.

The fact that Americans feel that it's a good trade off, thousands of kids shot dead a year, 300,000 dead at the end of a gun per decade in exchange for access to a weapon of death for self-defence, is a symptom of American's inability to properly control themselves with guns.

You can believe what you want, but I live in Europe now and my kids have LITERALLY never heard of a school shooting. They can walk down the streets with zero fear of guns. I don't have to teach them about guns, because guns are not an issue in society. If you think I'd trade all of that so that I could have a gun to defend myself you'd be wildly wrong. Europeans don't want guns, Asians don't want guns... only Americans are obsessed with guns... and surprise surprise... only Americans suffer from this sort of gun violence. Unless you include third world countries.. which I assume you might do, as so many gun nuts love to justify the deaths of so many kids by comparing America to African countries.

use the sort function
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
BTW, did you know the worst school shootings in history, until Sandy Hook, were in Germany?

Europe is a collection of a lot of countries, ethnic groups, and individuals. Oh BTW, gun sales in Germany and Austria is up 600 percent since the migrant crisis.
http://www.focus.de/finanzen/videos/aus-angst-vor-fluechtlingen-verkauf-um-600-gestiegen-diese-waffe-reissen-deutsche-den-haendlern-aus-den-haenden_id_5068963.html
Gun stores in Austria have been quickly selling out shotguns, pepper spray, and "tactial" knives. There is a backlog of permits to buy handguns and rifles. Once those are processed, the rifles and handguns will fly off the shelves just like the shotguns.
If it were the gun laws, what about countries with stricter gun laws, like Brazil and Mexico?

Last edited Sun May 29, 2016, 10:40 AM - Edit history (2)

Thats not a standard to judge whether or not Americans en masse are capable of safely owning guns. Statistics of misuse versus non- misuse are, which is why you want to use the rest of the world as a standard and ignore the statistics unchallenged.

Sorry. Not happening here.



America is the exception in many ways.



Oh, it matters.



Such nonsense. Any suffering is because of individuals making bad choices, not because of the majority - roughly 100 million people - that don't make bad choices. Shared responsibility for the heinous criminal acts of individuals is and always has been a bullshit argument made nearly exclusively by people that hate guns.



There is NOTHING reasonable about a complete ban. NOTHING.



That's nice, but I was talking self-defense, and in America self defense is legitimate and moral, whether one uses a gun or a sword or a club or ones fists.



Guess how much I give a fuck what Europeans think*.



"Thousands" of kids shot dead every year? Puhleeze. The 99.9+percent of gun owners that do not misuse their firearms resulting in death, is elegant proof that the only people that can not control themselves with guns, is a tiny percent of a percent. You have no argument against that.



See my comment above with the * near the end.



Bully for you. I prefer living here, thanks. My kids will never be subject to living under stupidity that leads to signs like these:







I don't really care what you would or wouldn't trade. Live your life over there as you see fit, and extend us here in America the same courtesy.

Your whole post reeks of anti-gun dogma and canned anti-gun talking points.

I would but I won't be around after they've had the requisite 250 years to acclimate to the culture here. (I'll be living in Scandinavia by then) If you doubt that the US is more violent than the UK, you should know that the US non-gun murder rate exceeds the OVERALL UK murder rate. Why, you ask? Numerous factors unrelated to people having guns.

Infusing a sense of hope for the future and respect would be a start. This nation got its start with its government oppressing the people. (Thank you very much King George.) There's now push-back when the government restricts what's been accepted as a freedom.

"Complete ban" - not happening; get serious. There are 600,000,000 privately held firearms worldwide. Half of those are here in the US. Allowing 3 seconds just for the action of picking up a firearm, picking up every gun in the US would take over 28 man-years.

"When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred." Maybe it's inconvenient, but it's true. Add to that the distrust of the government that would become rampant.

It doesn't matter what percent misuse guns. That's unrelated to the outcome. The outcome is thousands of dead kids per year and tens of thousands of dead Americans. Trying to make it about a percentage of users is a total red herring. I don't care one iota if you're a safe gun user because your safe gun use - in fact 99% of gun owners safe gun usage - does exactly nothing to save the lives of all of those people.

And self-defense... I now live in Ireland which is endlessly safer. My kids and kids all over the country have never even heard of a school shooting. They've never had to be taught how to shelter in place. The police don't even have guns. We don't need guns for self defense because there's no guns to defend against. Taking away all guns removes the need for guns to protect against guns.

We don't live in fear and our TV screens are not filled with scenes from the daily gun bloodbath. No one suggests teachers need guns and toddlers aren't shooting people on a weekly basis.

I know many Americans sense of self is tied to a gun, but I don't care. Because until the gun violence epidemic in America is solved America as a country can not be trusted with guns.

It most certainly does. The people who aren't committing gun violence, the 99.9+ percent of gun owners, have a voice in this too, and we aren't going away because you feel that we statistically don't matter.



Thousands of dead kids? You claim that repeatedly, but you never substantiate it. Why is that?



I don't care that you don't care. You aren't the arbiter of anything here. Maybe I'll start donating to what ever irish pro-gun group I can find, and start posting screenshots of the receipts, and see if you appreciate me sticking my nose into your countries affairs as much as you seem to enjoy sticking your nose into the affairs of mine.



Bully for you.




That's nice. My kids will never need ID to buy plastic utensils:








Taking away all the guns, leaves the old the infirm and the physically weak at a major disadvantage to those who aren't.

That's a fact.



There is no 'epidemic' of gun violence. There are people, a tiny percentage of a percentage, making bad choices.

Nothing more, nothing less. Calling it an 'epidemic' is just canned anti-gun hyperbole intended to scaremonger.

30k people a year die from plastic knives get back to me with your silliness.

And no saying that some people can be trusted with a grenade doesn't mean grenades should be readily available to the public. Saying that, if 30k people a year died by grenade they'd be outlawed and confiscated.

Oh wait. They are illegal. Because there's no safe way for 350m Americans to have access to hand grenades without lots of death. Kinda like guns.

You can pretend 30k people dying a year from one cause, for decades, includes thousands and thousands of children isn't an epidemic, then you don't know what an epidemic is.

http://www.healthline.com/health/worst-disease-outbreaks-history

That's a list of the top 10 epidemics/pandemics in the history of the US.

1793: Yellow Fever Outbreak in Philadelphia: 2000 dead
1830-1851: Second Cholera Pandemic: 150k dead in 22 years
1918: Spanish Flu Pandemic: 675,000 dead
1952: Polio Epidemic: 3,145 dead
1957: Asian Flu Pandemic: 70k dead
1977: Mexican Hot Sauce Botulism Outbreak: less than 60 affected
1993: Cryptosporidium Outbreak in Milwaukee: 100+ killed
2010: Whooping Cough in California: 10 dead
1980s to Now: The AIDS Epidemic: 660k in 30 years - 22k a year on average - 13,712 in 2012

Guns kill more people annually than:

1793: Yellow Fever Outbreak in Philadelphia: 2000 dead
1830-1851: Second Cholera Pandemic: 150k dead in 22 years
1952: Polio Epidemic: 3,145 dead
1977: Mexican Hot Sauce Botulism Outbreak: less than 60 affected
1993: Cryptosporidium Outbreak in Milwaukee: 100+ killed
2010: Whooping Cough in California: 10 dead
1980 to Now: AIDS

As far as the elderly... Now that IS scaremongering. Elderly people are much less likely to suffer from violent crime in Europe and guess what - they don't have guns to protect themselves. Huh.

All American pro-gun arguments boil down to the same thing: justifications for the senseless deaths of 10s of thousands of Americans.

It's OK that thousands of kids are gunned down a year, because of elderly people. Or because the majority of gun owners aren't murders. Or because guns are just tools.

and was not addressed in federal gun laws until the National Firearms Act was amended in 1968. There simply wasn't a market for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

When this amendment passed, the IRS sent out press releases to pick up the forms at the local post office. There also an amnesty to register your war trophy MP-40 or whatever. The quality of journalism being what it is, some local papers reported that you need to register your guns at the post office. My local paper did that, and my mom and I went to register her .25-06 rifle. So did half the town. The clerk measured the barrel and and pointed to the poster that showed what needed to be registered.
.html

Because it was 30k people dying from plastic utensils that prompted those regs, right?



Anti-gunners can't help but conflate, like you're doing here. Because a discriminate weapon like a firearm that actually has to be aimed, is exactly like an indiscriminate weapon that kills anyone in its proximity.



Oh, wait. You don't know fuckall about this subject, and are spewing falsehoods again. Grenades ARE legal to own under the national firearms act of 1934.

Oops. They're legally referred to as 'destructive devices' under the NFA. Look it up.



You can pretend that suicide and homicide have the same causes and therefore require the same solutions, to your hearts content, although it makes you look like you care nothing for the lives your using in a failed attempt to prop up your argument, since not correctly identifying the root cause does them all a major disservice. We on the other hand, can point out that factually, that suicides and homicides aren't the same, and they therefore don't have the same solutions.

I note that you still have yet to substantiate the "thousands of children" talking point. I thusly dismiss it, until such time as you substantiate it.

As to what an 'epidemic' is, meet mister dictionary:

ep·i·dem·ic: a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.
"a flu epidemic"

Gun violence isn't an infectious disease, nor are individually made bad choices.




None of which refutes the fact that such people are at a disadvantage.



All anti-gun arguments boil down to the same thing: Blaming deaths on the instrument rather than the people that choose to misuse that instrument, and short of that, blaming the people that aren't committing gun violence because they don't agree with you about the instrument.

Nothing new there.

Look...you aren't very good at this. You haven't any depth of understanding of the subject matter (tell me more about the legality of grenades, wont you?), and your anti-gun retread arguments keep coming off the wheels, as all anti-gun retread arguments inevitably do. At least consider boning up on the facts before you come in here wasting everyones time with falsehoods and hyperbole.

so you are saying individuals don't have the right to defend themselves or even use target pistols in, say, the World Cup? What about the elites?

So this kid should have done nothing other than hope the guy didn't kill her after he raped her?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/20/oklahoma-girl-shoots-home-intruder_n_1992381.html

Do you agree with this regressive elitist?
He is now former. BTW, I'm sure none of that applied to his family, since somebody with a gun took his kids to school, went with him and his wife where ever they went.
http://forums.officer.com/t176351/

According to whom? An authoritarian billionare like Bloomberg and his former Monsanto PR executive that keeps Everytown going? Or just the usual regressives?

That generally describes gun control reasoning.

This again seems like a call from the dissolution of all government.

All I did is ask if they are so miserable who is worthy to govern others. Any conclusions you drew from my question are still based on your statement. If your statement leads you to uncomfortable conclusions that is not my fault for pointing them out to you.

Americans can NOT capable of self-governing in relation to guns. If you need proof turn on the news any day of the week and count the bodies.

This does NOT mean all government is meaningless or useless, however. And trying to brutally manhandle reality to make it seem like thats my position is transparently ridiculous and self-serving.

There's no uncomfortable conclusions I can draw either - except about the excuses you're willing to make for the mass slaughter of your fellow citizens.

Why don't you just come out and say what you actually mean, the whole sentence. You know you want to. What you MEAN, is that:

"Americans can NOT capable of self-governing in relation to guns, because they haven't drawn the same conclusions about it that I have."

In short, its another form of "since Americans haven't chosen to ban guns, that shows that they can't self govern in relation to guns".

You are an anti-gun extremist, and about as far away from mainstream America as you can get,.

Americans inability to safely own guns has zero to do with conclusions I have drawn and everything to do with the 30k people that needlessly die every year just so you can have a deadly toy.

And yes, accepting the deaths of thousands of children a year for decades as simply the cost of living in gun utopia is mainstream in America. No where else in the world though. The rest of the world thinks Americans are mentally ill in relation to guns. And if we're using mainstream opinion as benchmark, the US is the outsider freak on Earth.

Lets get something strait here: The only entities that think this is a choice between us having guns and 30k people dead every year, are anti-gun idealogues like you.

So yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with the conclusions you have drawn, exactly like I said.



Asserted with out substantiation. Dismissed likewise.



America thinks that countries that require ID for plastic utensils are even more mentally ill.



That's still using the rest of the world as a standard. I don't live in the rest of the world, nor would I want to. I'm happy here.

But then, I'm also not trying to see your country live by the particulars of my opinion, like you seem to be doing with mine.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; "

"in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others." http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

and that if I used something to defend myself it would be moot as to the "legality" of the weapon itself because I was as allowed by the Constitution to protect myself. I bought into the John Birch/NRA bushwa that if I were a registered gun owner - well Khrushchev himself will use the records and take my gun from my cold dead hand himself. I believe we have the rights to own weapons, and the Constitution that gives us our right to own also gives Federal, State and Local governments the right to control and curb the right in response poblic safety.

You know, like the fact over twenty shootings this year so far have been at the armed hand of children under three years old.

The fact is that any honest gun owner should have no problem with a national data base, you'all seem to have no problems with TSA, no fly lists. Why not a national data base? Just think how many domestic and work place shooting would be prevented if the cops just disarmed all those gun owning hot heads with restraining orders who end up shooting mostly women, a lot of children - themselves.

I happen to agree with a lot of what you say about the Second Amendment.

I agree with Col Bo's three reasons for an armed militia:
1. To protect ourselves if the Govt can't protect ourselves from criminals.
2. To protect ourselves if the Govt can't protect ourselves from a foreign threat.
3. To protect ourselves from an unresponsive Govt.

I also believe government was instituted for moderating the effect of one groups rights from interfering with another's. As none of reasons the Col gave for maintaining weapons exist, I believe the Govt is acting in the interest of the big majority of us.

Registering is essential. So is a national data base of those who should not be allowed to be armed, like people with peace warrant, restraining orders, on bail for family violence need to be disarmed.. The adult who allows a weapon into the hands of a child needs severe jail time, doubled if the weapon was not registered or on the data base.

But of course this is a protected group and I generally don't get on gun threads because both extremes are semi-full of themselves.

Go on about your meaningless meme-ing.

does that include parents who teach gun safety, marksmanship, or hunting? Even in Canada a 12 year old can possess and buy ammo for this without adult supervision. No, it doesn't need to be registered.

The same weapon in the US has to be registered and is strictly regulated.

Quick civics and history lesson. The Constitution doesn't give rights, it protects the individual from government infringement on what the founders viewed as a "natural right". Natural Law theory was very popular among the founders.

BTW, registration fails the cost to benefit analysis.

We aren't Canada. We aren't Israel or Switzerland either. Those countries seem to be able to exercise their gun rights without killing as many as we do. They also have no death penalties. Hmmmmm ...... ?

"does that include parents who teach gun safety, marksmanship, or hunting?" That's so goofy a question it refuses dignification.

But since you want to get kids involved - all kids get basic fundamental gun safety classes and after twelve gun safety/shooting permits with classes, bring back the single shot .410 and single shot .22 until 16.

You'd have to have 2000 plus hours to set hair in Texas. How about 200 hrs of training and range practice prior to owning a big gun?

So in your analysis of cost to benefit, how much value did you come up the life of your son or daughter?


Really, I am in the wrong group, you just go on about your goofy meme-ing.

First, this is not a "protected group". Everyone is welcome to post here regardless of stance in this issue.

Only if one ignores the things anti-gunners have said over the years, is this 'goofy'.



I've said many times, that gun safety should be taught in high school. Universally.



Setting hair in Texas isn't a constitutionally protected civil right. Gun ownership, on the other hand, is.

Forget registration. The anti-gunners have already shown how they'd use it, multiple times.

we would be just as safe as Canada, Norway, and Switzerland. BTW, throw Iceland and Finland in there too. Our murders are concentrated in a few urban areas like NOLA, Detroit, Chicago. Most of them are gang and drug related.

The classes are required for a minor's permit. but up there, he or she can possess and "non restricted" firearm.

because being a beautician requires more training since we are talking about chemicals and peoples' hair. why have a higher standard for nonLEO Texan than NYPD?

That can cut both ways, can't it? Let me put it another way, there is no evidence that registration affects crime rates. There isn't a known case anywhere in the world where a crime was solved using it. That is why Canada and New Zealand abandoned their registration of most long guns. They keep them on handguns only, well, because. IOW, I don't see that as a net benefit to my son or daughter.

Translation: I'm incapable of honestly defending my position, so I'm dashing off.

"...Constitution that gives us our right..." The right is innate; not created by the Constitution or any other law.

"...Federal, State and Local governments..." Federal and state yes, local less so.

"...the right to control and curb the right..." Governments don't have rights they have power/authority. Their laws neither control nor curb any rights. Laws delimit criminal activity such that a reasonable person can deter ahead what is and isn't a crime.

A sincere thanks for joining the discussion and welcome to the group.

You should check your stereotyping at the door. Since day one I have opposed the Terror / no-fly list as unconstitutional travesties. They are however very popular with the gun control groups who want to ban people on them from purchasing Firearms. Funny how acceptance changes when the shoe fits on the other foot.

You also missed the point that rights are there to protect the minority. Typically the government will act in the best interests of the majority or itself.

I have no problem at all with conducting background checks to prevent people disqualified from owning firearms. At one point I did support registration however it is clear there are far too many who accept the idea of confiscation (with visions of trampling the 4th and 5th Amendments as well) and believe that the Bill of Rights is merely a list of suggestions. I oppose registration for the same reason I oppose voter ID; it is merely a step on the way to disenfranchisement of a segment of society.

I disagreed with almost every word of your post, but I enjoyed reading your perspective. This group isn't a "safe haven".

The gun control group is a safe space though, but it's a moot point because only 2-3 gun control supporters post there.

they only listen when someone they know is shot.