around gun control issues, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It exists. It's "hiding in plain sight" as they say.

For much of the nation's history, the Second Amendment was taken to mean that the individual states, but not the federal government, had the power to limit who could or couldn't posses guns, and who was and wasn't part of the state militia. This was the principle that was upheld in Presser v. Illinois in 1886, where the court ruled that the state of Illinois could decide who was and wasn't part of a proper militia, and who could and couldn't parade through the streets with guns.

Since then, it's become gradually, but firmly established that the federal government can exercise some authority over the manufacture, sale, and possession of weapons, explosives, and other dangerous materials. The first national gun control laws were passed in the 1920s in response to interstate violence from gangsters. This established a principle, which was upheld in the courts, that the federal government had the power to regulate some aspects of the manufacture and possession of guns.

But in a 5-4 decision in 2008 (D.C. v. Heller), the court departed from previous rulings and found that Americans do have an individual right to posses guns for defense of the home. The court's divided ruling was muddled and leaves more questions than answers. For instance, in the majority opinion, Justice Scalia wrote:

mostly based on Barron v Baltimore

The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

In Tennessee, where I live, Republicans have complete control of the legislature and the governor's mansion, and have since 2010. They've passed so many "gun freedom" bills that I'm not even sure where they can go next.

I can easily understand legitimate concerns over government regulations and prohibitions for the manufacture, sale, possession, and use of guns. But the "vanguard" leading the opposition to gun control takes a rigid and absolute position that teeters on sketchy legal arguments, dubious historical understanding, and defies both reason and common sense.

Again, from Antonin Scalia's majority opinon in D.C. v. Heller:

when buying from any licensed dealer. Intra state private sales are up to the states per the tenth amendment and commerce clause. We do know that, based on at least one criminology study before background checks, criminals don't go to FFLs, gun shows, or anyplace they don't "trust". Meaning, they either get it from the same guy that sold them their coke.

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:06 AM - Edit history (2)

the excerpts I provided were picked by me and taken from court opinions which I've read in full and thoroughly considered from both sides. I've delved deeply into the arguments on both sides of this debate before, strictly out of curiosity and not because I have a "dog in the fight".

Your attempt at "argument by belittling" doesn't bother me. Why should it? You're a random stranger on the internet.

I've gone back and forth with certain interlocutors in informed, civil, debate over this question for days on end without either of us once ever questioning the other's intellectual honesty or ability to understand the arguments, as you've just done right here, after only one exchange.

I don't really have the time or interest in opening this debate again with you -- in parsing what 18th century writers meant by "militia", or what was in Alexander Hamilton's mind when he penned the Second Amendment, etc.

(P.S. -- it's your ability to understand arguments that I doubt. It started in your first reply when you ostensibly "corrected" my already correct summary of Presser v Illiniois and other things. Now you post this rambling, semi-incoherent screed (e.g. "I would have to read his quote in context." Who? WTF are you taking about?)

and kind of jaded. You might be the exception, but most on your side are frankly dishonest and clueless. If you are victim of guilt by association, my apologizes.
Your other posts are civil, but I wouldn't say informed. Misinformed, but not informed.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
I understand arguments quite well. You missed the part about incorporation doctrine. It was late and didn't edit.

I am well aware of incorporation under the 14th amendment. A 5-4 decision in 2010 incorporated the Second Amendment, with some important caveats.

If I'm "misinformed" as you put it, then I'm perhaps only as "misinformed" as some of the dissenting justices on the more recent split decisions, including DC v Heller, and McDonald v City of Chicago. If not for a few 5-4 rulings over the last decade by a historically conservative court, a different reading of the Second Amendment, which you seem to dismiss as "misinformed" whimsy, would be the prevailing legal opinion.

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

which one has the objectively stronger argument? Which is based on history and which is based on ideology? No, the answer isn't "what my side agrees with is the correct ruling". That applies to both sides of any issue. The dissenting view has nothing to do with prevailing legal opinion.
Also, people will support a decision for reasons having nothing to do with the issue at hand. For example, Thomas pushed the idea of using McDonald to overturn the Slaughterhouse cases. A lot of liberal legal scholars supported McDonald for the same reason. Frankly, I agree with them. McDonald should have overturned Slaugherhouse and Cruikshank. Yes, I agree with Thomas about one thing. Don't agree with him on a lot of things, but I do this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago#Reception

Here is one problem I have with Stevens

choices at hand. The idea that limits can be imposed is clearly recognized, so the question is what limits? The same question as with other rights.

Free speech has limits, but what limits? Freedom of assembly has limits, but what limits?

We've argued as a nation over those questions for 200 years.

here's what the aclu has to say on free speech "Over the years, the ACLU has frequently represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone." https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech

the only limits to free speech are false accusations and inciting violence. all other laws limiting free speech are unconstitutional.

Public speech that is loud, crude, or offensive can get you arrested. You are subject to arrest if protesting near a public official under secret service protection. Protesting near abortion clinics can get you arrested. Students at secondary and post-secondary public schools are subject to a host of free speech issues -- as are their teachers and professors. Whistle-blower protections exist on paper but not always in practice. "National security" and "counter terrorism" activities have created a multitude of free speech issues. You think you have complete freedom of artistic expression? Try painting a mural of a nude woman on the side of your house.

Even inside the realm of those issues you raised -- false accusations and inciting violence -- questions over the proper limits arise all the time.

The ACLU is continually defending free speech on multiple fronts for a reason, because free speech is continually under threat on multiple fronts.

on multiple fronts for a reason, because free speech is continually under threat on multiple fronts."

agreed, politicians are contently passing laws to restrict free speech. my point/opinion was that making false accusations and inciting violence should be the only limits on speech.

this is another opinion of mine, the aclu is to the 1st amendment what the nra is to the 2nd amendment

goes to far?

i don't agree with everything the nra says or does, but it takes extremists to battle extremists. which came first, extreme gun control or extreme gun rights activists? i honestly don't know. this battle started long before i was born. i was born in the early 80's

is that at no point in U.S. history was firearm ownership limited to the militia. If you believe the militia argument, you are also forced to believe that near the beginning of the Bill of Rights, Amendments clearly designed to limit governmental power and to protect citizens, is a statement designed to enable the government to raise militias and to keep individuals from owning firearms. You must believe this despite the fact that in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution the Congress is given the power "To raise and support armies."

As if it couldn't get any worse, you have the state constitutions.

Kentucky: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. (1792)

Vermont: The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777)

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).

Etc., so on, and so forth.

so why are you confused when people are angry about your group's violence?

99.9% of gun owners are in that group...we are called "law abiding gun owners." Or as Wayne likes to say, "good guys (and gals) with guns."

of the insults, name calling and sexual references put forward by the pro controllers? Why is one group so afraid of discussion they block all posters that they disagree with even if there is not an SOP violation?

Gun controllers like to operate almost exclusively in "safe spaces", unburdened by differing opinions or facts. In my opinion, I think it's because their arguments are so thin that they can't hold up to any reasonable degree of scrutiny. You see this at public events and all over the Internet. Meanwhile, pro gun folks almost never ban, block, or shout down the opposition.

I am appreciative that you took the time to respond in a civil and engaging manner. We need more of these discussions.

It's my actual attitude expressed in very concise terms.

The internets are filled with trash-talk, puffery, bluster, sweeping generalizations, red herrings, straw men, old canards, etc., etc.

Gun grabbers and gun humpers, etc.

Go ahead and get offended that someone somewhere used an unkind word to describe your hobby/religion/social club/cause, whatever. Start a crusade to clean up the internet and restore standards of civil discussion.

Good luck.

"Why is one group so afraid of discussion they block all posters that they disagree with even if there is not an SOP violation?"

I know........difficult one to answer.

Sounds like a very specific personal grievance between yourself and persons unknown to me. Purely as a guess, I could perhaps deduce from your question that you believe that unspecified persons have abused the alert system to unfairly silence debate.

Welcome to the club. I'm blocked in at least 4 groups.

I didn't realize this was a pity party when I chimed in originally.

Good luck.

Thank you for a reasoned debate. I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I enjoyed reading them and following your research. I would be happy to see you visit our little gungeon again some time.

As for background checks, as one poster said, they are already the law for any guns bought from dealers (as I'm sure you know). It is the idea of forcing background checks on private sellers that tends to founder on the rocks of illogic. For example, Nevada has a universal background check initiative coming up for a vote that would effectively make it a crime to give your gun to a friend who does gunsmithing on the side for, say, a trigger job, or maybe some bluing, unless (a) he is a licensed gunsmith or (b) you are there at all times he has possession of the weapon. Another section basically prohibits loaning a weapon to a friend who is going target shooting, unless they are actually at an "established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located", or unless you are there as well. ( I guess no more target shooting out in the desert - NUTS!) Finally, there is a section on temporarily loaning a weapon to someone (not a family member) if it

"a) is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm; and
b) lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm."

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but reading this passage seems to indicate that unless you are actually there to hand them the weapon when the threat materializes, and to take it back as soon as the threat is neutralized, you have broken the law.

And this is considered to be an interim measure by many of those on the gun-control side of the argument.

Edited to add a link to the background initiative:

http://nvsos.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3440

was that a reference to a person who uploads vids like that on youtube?

It was a reference to the section of the initiative I discussed that dealt with only being able to loan weapons for use at approved shooting ranges. In other words, no taking someone else's guns out into the middle of the desert, safely away from all civilization, and plinking away.

Katie Couric's deceptive editing http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172194501 to be an example of serious debate or discussion?

Or rather is it a manipulative attempt to create a false narrative leading the audience to a pre-determined conclusion?

It usually ends with a penis reference and something about fear, right after they make a post about seeing a gun in public.

Gun controllers can't even be honest about their agenda.

has become extremely fashionable as of late.

Sitting in WV now typing, though I live in Va my career and heart will always be Blue and Gold.

I always loved watching the VT vs WVU series....what a great rivalry back in the Big East.

I wish both my kids would go to VPI...that way they could commute to college.

They seem to think it is so clever.

From "ammosexual" to the constant penis references to the more specific questioning of sexual inadequacy of some sort.

I'm often stuck wondering whether it's because they are still just in that middle-school level of rhetoric where sex is "icky," or if they think we are stuck there...

Either way, it's still nothing more than an admission that they can't craft any reasonable support for their stance -- if they could, one would assume that, at some point, they would.

Ha ha, love that quote. The simple fact is you are a gun control supporter also, unless you think people should have the right to have tank guns or other such armaments.

Paul Allen has a tank collection. It isn't so much law as it is cost and market. In a sense you are right. No gun control means a ten year old can order a machine gun from Amazon and have it delivered to his or her tree fort. I have yet to find anyone at that extreme. The other extreme on the other hand, I know a few. One of them wants bring back the Volstead Act and a ban on all abortion too.

You need at the min a ffl. A license. That's gun control.

a tax stamp and registration. Plus a shit load of money. I don't know if it is really "gun control" per se. I would put it in the same realm as mortars and grenades. An FFL has to do with manufacturing and interstate sales.

You need to be a dealer to have a gun like that as well as machine guns- re the gun control act of 68, specifically a type 9 FFL which requires among other things a 3,000 fee every three years.
some links for info
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

the ones that were registered before May 1986 is the same as any other NFA item. What that is referring to is a SOT. Basically, demo models for your business to sell to police departments etc. If you want a gun made since then, you would need a SOT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns

and its gun control. My original point stands. Most people aren't arguing about gun control, since practically all of us believe in it, but at what level it kicks in.

I simply used my favorite example.

This was us having a serious discussion without reverting to any crazy name calling. I think we provided the op with what they were looking for. Thanks.

Most controllers have little knowledge of firearms and the laws that govern them.

This is not necessarily a problem if they want to have a non-technical discussion. Unfortunately, a technical discussion is almost always where they want to start.

Then the controllers get frustrated when the gunnies try to educate them so that they can actually have the technical discussion the intially desired.

On the extreme, there are those who are ignorant of the subject -- and proud of that ignorance -- yet somehow believe that this very ignorance is what gives them the expertise to insist on changes to their preferences.

why would gun control supporters feel compelled to talk about gun violence at all? Why haven't the gun geniuses fixed this 30k annual gun death problem? Lack of responsibility in the industry and owners and their supporting legislators is what compels other people to feel the need to get involved at all. I don't think they want to.

To help with the suicide problem which is 2/3 of those 30K firearms deaths, we get insulted by saying those are just NRA talking points.

a ban on gun ownership for people being treated for certain psychiatric conditions? Or for persons taking certain medications which can cause mood disruptions or suicidal thoughts? If gun advocates agreed with that, then we have some common ground to begin action.

The gun lobbyists prefer doctors not even be "allowed" to talk about guns. So it's hard to see how we can marry improvements in healthcare to reducing gun deaths.

An appeal process and it is not permanent.

The gun lobbyists prefer doctors not even be "allowed" to talk about guns. So it's hard to see how we can marry improvements in healthcare to reducing gun deaths.
These laws are not the work of gun-control advocates, I don't think. So you are not being honest that gun lobbyists care about improving healthcare and reducing death.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-laws-that-muzzle-doctors-on-gun-safety-are-dangerous/

laws like that would likely discourage people from seeking treatment. I think we would see a net negative benefit. Gun ownership rights can not and should not be removed without due process.

Mental health professionals and advocates do not support sanctions for those seeking treatment.

We can only speculate on what doctors would think the best course of action would be to reduce gun deaths because of the ban on research. You need to have scientific research on which to base public health policy.

"This ban, supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), has effectively silenced researchers at both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) for conducting any comprehensive studies on what causes violence — and what can be done to prevent it — since 1996. As expected, it’s left public health experts and policymakers with little to lean on as they attempt to craft new legislation to help quell the fatal trend."

Does the gun lobby support ending the Dickey Amendment, then, as many doctors do?
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/12/02/3727406/doctors-gun-violence-research/

Then I don't know why the funding hasn't passed. Congress just must block funding for no particular reason.
"But today the CDC still avoids gun-violence research, demonstrating what many see as the depth of its fear about returning to one of the country’s most divisive debates. The agency recently was asked by The Washington Post why it was still sitting on the sidelines of firearms studies. It declined to make an official available for an interview but responded with a statement noting it had commissioned an agenda of possible research goals but still lacked the dedicated funding to pursue it."

"Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced bills supporting the funding. Both times the Republican-controlled House of Representatives said no. Maloney recently said she planned to reintroduce her bill this year, but she wasn’t hopeful."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

By President Obama. It did not prove the controllers narrative, so they are silent on this.

which was not "allowed" to consider guns as a risk factor, led to a predictable, contorted paper. It didn't make news because it was just a retread of the things we're "allowed" to talk about.
"While the new study analyzed Wilmington’s 127 recorded shootings in 2013, it does not address how the perpetrators acquired their weapons, or if attempts to limit access to firearms might lead to a dip in crime."
It's hardly a thorough epidemiological study, and it's offensive to anyone who believes in free scientific inquiry.
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/cdc-gun-violence-research-wilmington-suicides/

as long as it follows the scientific method, is peer reviewed by experts in the relevant field(in this case, not epidemiologists or public health types) , and not "advocacy scholarship" and junk science. That was the problem with the CDC back then. Tax dollars going to junk science that told the prohibition lobby what they wanted to hear. Meanwhile, the DoJ funded studies, which continues, didn't have that problem. They were simply science.

The one beezul is probably talking about was contracted out by CDC to IMNRC. Obama ordered that the study be completed following Sandy Hook. http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix

Gun control advocates hate it, because well, it's unbiased peer reviewed research.

There is a ban on advocacy for gun control.

once that's shot down by 2A progressives, gun humper and right wing insults are all they have.

They ridicule what they don't/refuse to understand.



For most of them it's a binary argument.... Guns = Bad ....period it's their safe place.

Would you make your family walk through a lightning storm? But keeping a gun in your house is either (1) more dangerous than that, or (2) useless. If the gun is locked up in a safe and unloaded it's useless. If it's not locked up, then it's dangerous, whether a family member uses it inappropriately, or whether it becomes one of the hundreds of thousand firearms stolen every year.

Now the burglar has a gun!

Gun owners are selfish because, whether they like it or not, the NRA will crow about every gun and ammunition purchase you make. That makes the NRA stronger, and they can force state legislatures to allow open carry in Walmart or in bars (but not at the NRA National Convention).

Since the NRA first scared away federal legislators from voting on the Brady Bill in 1990, as well as other reasonable gun safety laws since then, over 15,000,000 Americans have been killed or wounded by guns. That's a lot of fucking carnage for useless toys.

Guns are useless. There is no reason--except selfish pride--to own one in modern America.

And that gun you have that will be passed on from generation to generation, will, if you are lucky, not be involved, eventually, in a murder, robbery, suicide, accidental discharge that kills or wounds, or negligent discharge that just misses.

The only gun that gets thrown away is a murder weapon.

... at a range, then it is useless. It is no better than an arcade toy, but deadly.

If you think "it might come in handy" for any other reason, then your gun is dangerous. Studies show those guns do much more harm than good. And, purchase of the gun supports the NRA, the gun culture, and, at least indirectly, the carnage that has become a Public Health crisis.

I plead with you to destroy your gun for your family's and your descendants' sakes.

... at daily kos. I might re-publish some of those diaries over here. You will find them to be interesting reading, I'm sure. Cheers!

Swayed many folks to 'destroy' their guns have you?

I walk into gun shows and gun conventions and start preaching the good old-timey gun control, lay a few hands here or there, and before you can say, "Wayne LaPierre's the Devil," my new friends are speaking in tongues and destroying their firearms.

Blessed be The Word!

I feel sorry for you though. You're in a canoe trying to paddle up the waterfall.
From my experience the Yuri Orlovs out number the Elmers about 10,000 to 1.

Have a good day.

That is moment of epiphany.

...their fortified buildings, armored vehicles or attack aircraft, guns are just passe.

If more gun controllers were like you, I would really be worried...they'd probably get some laws passed.

Most of them burn out after not playing well with others and/or not playing well with DU admins,
or merely go away when they aren't treated as the Messiah Of Gun Control.

Maybe you're different; time will tell.

You will also have to deal with the sharp elbows of the other self-appointed
'DU leaders of gun control activism', at least one of which got muscled out of running
the Gun Control Reform Activism group.

Y'all are nothing but a nest of vipers, more dangerous to your allies than your enemies

if guns are so dangerous then why do we allow these people to own them?

don't you care about their families?

Too bad in this political climate politicians feel they have to do something like that. Do we want to support the gun culture in any respect whatsoever? I don't think so.

President Obama's "bitter clingers" statement, I believe, states his position on guns the best. His recent call to blackball any politician who doesn't support reasonable gun control is a step in the right direction. I would like universal disarmament, including the police, except for a SWAT team, but I'm realist enough to take whatever reasonable gun control measures that are possible.

as do i and many other gun owners. i follow every CA law concerning firearms. our politicians break more laws than private citizens.

sen. yee plead guilty to gun running http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article25986487.html

Mayor Gordon Jenkins charged with bribery http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/18/ny-mayor-part-mayors-against-illegal-guns-charged-/

Racine, WI Mayor Gary Becker charged with child-sex felonies http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28660061/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/wisconsin-mayor-charged-child-sex-crimes/#.V1CmoOArLnA

Jackson, Mississippi mayor Frank Melton In September 2006, Mayor Melton, with his detective bodyguards and a group of youths, called the "lawn crew" because they traveled with Melton, ostensibly to help with neighborhood clean-up, raided half a duplex on Ridgeway Street without a warrant. Witnesses say that Melton attacked much of the rental duplex with a large stick. He cut his hand during the incident and had to go to the hospital for stitches. He reportedly returned with the young men, with sledgehammers to finish destroying that side of the duplex.[7] Police arrested the tenant, Evans Welch, on drug possession, but he was discharged within days for lack of evidence. No warrant was issued for the raid, nor was the owner of the duplex—Jennifer Sutton—notified of any intention to conduct the raid or damage her property. After news of the demolition broke on Sept. 1, both the attorney general and the district attorney investigated the incident.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Melton

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:34 PM - Edit history (1)

But don't think that your opinion deserves any more weight than mine. At least I'm looking out for your family's safety.

I came back to edit my post because you were not quite up front with me and any readers out there. Your quote about the carry policy at the NRA Convention was missing some important information, including the italicized portion here:

" ... Firearms and knives will be prohibited in any areas temporarily under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Secret Service. When carrying your firearm, please remember to follow all federal, state and local laws.

Please note that under Kentucky law, concealed firearms are prohibited in areas primarily devoted to dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, and loaded firearms are prohibited in any room where alcoholic beverages are being sold by the drink. Alcoholic beverages will be served at some events at the Kentucky International Convention Center (KICC), in certain areas of the KFC Yum! Center Arena, and in some smaller venues."

...out for his family's safety, in a manner not a whit different from those claiming to be
looking out for the safety of restroom patrons and women seeking abortions.

... akin to anti-choice and bigoted speech. Okay.

... Moses couldn't disapprove of the false idolators, and Washington and Franklin couldn't berate the tax-without-representation guys, and on and on. If they do those things, they are just like the anti-abortion lobby. Laugh.

... you are completely mischaracterizing the issue of carry at the NRA convention. Why am I surprised?

... we learn to grow it in a lab. Two wrongs don't make a right, though, and we are talking about dead animals versus dead people.

And consuming it only perpetuates the desire for its taste. As long as there is the desire, animals are threatened. To be consistent, you should be advocating the absolute abolishment of meat in any form from the human diet. Unless your selfish, of course. Then, there is the question of your use of petroleum products. What of your carbon footprint?

... minimal. You have taken the meat question to an extreme. No selfishness involved in lab meat.

What about Harleys? Do you have a motorcycle? Super selfish. Do you fart in elevators? Pretty selfish. But guns are the worst, except for Libertarians and Republicans, who love the whole gun thing on top of their other selfishnesses.

And if you refuse to acknowledge it's logic, you must only be doing so out of selfishness. Super minimal, eh? By what standard, first world?

No, whats selfish is blaming the instrument rather than the individual who misuses it, and demanding the entire nation change to suit your biases.

Make no mistake, that is what you want.

Shooting guns is a blast.
Target, skeet, hunting, plinking, practice.
Range time is always good time with friends/family.

Self-defense if/when they need arises. (Not a big deal if they are locked up most times.)

Necessary tools for several employment opportunities.

Definitely there is pride in collecting & shooting certain makes/models.
And passing them on if wanted.


So actually there is plenty of enjoyment (and practicality) in owning guns, and being able to buy/use them without much hassle.

Of course there are also plenty of responsibilities associated with them.