is killing a person or animal always a bad thing?

I am asking you

Perhaps you could elaborate more on this.
Should arrows and knives be banned as well?

Have a nice evening and please feel free to put me on ignore.

and don't want you to have them. {Yet many who advocate bans have no issue with special exemptions which allow them to own/carry guns}

I haven't owned a gun nor shot regularly since college days on the rifle team.

That is the first sign there is a problem.

Most people who insist on having a gun are by definition highly likely not someone who should.

Many people have guns simply because others have guns and they fear. I think most of them would be willing to give up their gun if everybody else had to.

Guns are unnecessary unless you live in the wilderness. Keeping them in locked up, well regulated militias as the constitution requires would make more sense. You could go there and play with it, shoot at inanimate objects, etc.

ps this issue is not worth losing voters over...there are no gun bans and wont be

Does that mean that collectors with 20 or 30 are more evil than hit man with 2 or 3?


Don't look now but your catch-22 is showing. What's up with that?


Do you actually have any evidence of that?


I think if you convince the cops, I'll listen to that argument.


The Bill of Rights and various contemporaneous writings of the Founders and laws of the period favor and/or mandate each citizen keeping their arms in their home. A militia is an organization not a firearm lock-box. Where did you get this idea?


Do you have some evidence that "playing" with a firearm is a good idea?


No it isn't. This issue has contributed to lost elections going back 20 years. Dropping "assault weapon" language from party policies, issues and platforms would help.


Quite so. It would get more Democrats into office if those party policies and platforms didn't speak to contrary and sway some to vote for folks like trump.

I respect your choice not to own them, but I insist on owning them. Does that disqualify me?


No, for two reasons. First, everyone "has to" give up cannabis under Federal law (never mind cocaine and meth), yet they are demonstrably easier to get than prescription cold medicine. Everyone "had to" give up alcohol during Prohibition, yet alcohol abuse increased, especially of harder distillates. In both cases, driving the commerce underground simply made it more violent, more lucrative, and more hardcore; it did not eliminate it.

Second, your "have to" part requires that there be *somebody* with guns to enforce the "have to" part. Gun control laws are enforced at gunpoint, after all. And the entire purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the executive branch from having a monopoly of force, since such monopolies have almost always turned toxic.

........not someone who should.

This is precisely the type of statement that drives folks to vote GOP. Given the fact that such a small percentage of firearms are actually used in crime, and then by those with criminal records, this could not be a more obvious and stupid LIE.

Umm, this is incorrect. Look at MD, NJ, NY, CA...

And there are those calling for a new AWB. Guess what the "B" stands for...

And, see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172202633