[speechlesstx]

Latest news suggests only 35% of US homes possess guns so it seems gun possession is a minority issue, a very vocal minority but a minority issue nonetheless. If only 35% will be alienated by improved gun control what is stopping government from getting the job done?

First of all I doubt that percentage is correct. Secondly, that has no bearing on the second amendment. The right is guaranteed regardless unless and until the states ratify a change.

[talaniman]

Greenie handyguy, I have to agree, there are no deterrents in the system, just higher education to make a criminal better. And police can only react after the fact in most cases, and the perp is long gone.

A complex problem indeed.

Latest news suggests only 35% of US homes possess guns so it seems gun possession is a minority issue, a very vocal minority but a minority issue nonetheless. If only 35% will be alienated by improved gun control what is stopping government from getting the job done?

Fear of losing their jobs by supporting reasonable gun control/safety, that most agree with anyway. And an NRA shilling for the gun manufacturers. 4 million members of the NRA and most agree with the rest of the population on reasonable solutions for gun safety.

90% of my friends are hunters but what surprised me was NONE of them where members of the NRA. They would rather buy more hunting and fishing stuff with that membership money. Other clubs have better discounts on "stuff".

[paraclete]

Rights are one thing, practicality another. There are certain weapons it is undesirable to allow in the hands of the general population, banning such weapons does not prevent weapon ownership. The Constitution is not prescriptive as to what form arms might take, but it is unlikely it suggests any and all arms should exist in the general population when the founders couldn't see beyond the end of their muzzle loading muskets and swords were still in use

[speechlesstx]

Rights are one thing, practicality another. There are certain weapons it is undesirable to allow in the hands of the general population, banning such weapons does not prevent weapon ownership. The Constitution is not prescriptive as to what form arms might take, but it is unlikely it suggests any and all arms should exist in the general population when the founders couldn't see beyond the end of their muzzle loading muskets and swords were still in use

One of my best friends has a working cannon, get over it.

[paraclete]

One of my best friends has a working cannon, get over it.

Legally or otherwise, I wonder is stupidity a right

[Wondergirl]

The city that Our president hails from, Chicago

He isn't from Chicago. He lived here for a while.

Chicago is in the throes of improving education, especially to keep kids in school for the long haul, increasing the number of after-school activities, taking back neighborhoods block by block, etc. I'm thinking there is a future for preventing gang activity with the use of mini drones.

[speechlesstx]

legally or otherwise, I wonder is stupidity a right

According to our stupid secretary of state it is, but the stupid part here is thinking a guy that can build a working cannon is the stupid one.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE91P0HJ20130226?irpc=932

[Handyman2007]

I do not know where that 35% comes from but I think it is more regional. If you live in New Hampshire or Maine , I think it is around 80%. New York City, less than 2%. So the 35% is a real shot in the dark, excuse the pun. But gun sales are way up and the amount of LEGALLY owned guns in this country is close to 250 million.

[Handyman2007]

He isn't from Chicago. He lived here for a while.

Chicago is in the throes of improving education, especially to keep kids in school for the long haul, increasing the number of after-school activities, taking back neighborhoods block by block, etc. I'm thinking there is a future for preventing gang activity with the use of mini drones.

The only people taking back the neighborhoods are the thugs and gangsters. Don't let the liberal media candy coat the actual facts.

[Handyman2007]

legally or otherwise, I wonder is stupidity a right

So you are saying owning a gun is stupid?

[Wondergirl]

The only people taking back the neighborhoods are the thugs and gangsters. Don;t let the liberal media candy coat the actual facts.

It's not from the media. It's from professionals I know who are hard at work in Chicago.

[Handyman2007]

Really. Officials in Chicago. Do you really know Chicago's history?

[smoothy]

Rights are one thing, practicality another. There are certain weapons it is undesirable to allow in the hands of the general population, banning such weapons does not prevent weapon ownership. The Constitution is not prescriptive as to what form arms might take, but it is unlikely it suggests any and all arms should exist in the general population when the founders couldn't see beyond the end of their muzzle loading muskets and swords were still in use

That's not what the Federalist papers make abundantly clear... it does very clearly demostrate the people have the same access to the same weapons the government would use to prevent a tyrannical government exactly like the one we fought a war to free ourselves from... specifically the British government.

[Handyman2007]

Here's a situation. A city is under siege by the US Military. Who has the advantage- the military with their tanks and automatic weapons or the citizens with their semi auto arms and 20 times the numbers of military personnel and the knowledge of the city.
And you are correct, there is no absolute description of what weapons or arms that can be owned. There is nothing stating anything about carrying concealed weapons. There is nothing stating that a citizen cannot own a mortar or grenade launcher. The Government has decided that for us. Do you know that Constitutionally and according to Federal Firearms possession laws, a police officer, either local OR state has no authority to take your weapons unless you are suspected of a crime. If I am stopped on my way top the target range and get stopped by the police for a traffic stop and I am in possession of my legally registered firearm, they have no authority to take possession of it. NONE.

[Wondergirl]

Really. Officials in Chicago. Do you really know Chicago's history?

I said professionals, not officials. I've lived here since 1963, and my father was a native, so yes, I know Chicago's history.

[paraclete]

Here's a situation. A city is under siege by the US Military. Who has the advantage- the military with their tanks and automatic weapons or the citizens with their semi auto arms and 20 times the numbers of military personnel and the knowledge of the city.
And you are correct, there is no absolute description of what weapons or arms that can be owned. There is nothing stating anything about carrying concealed weapons. There is nothing stating that a citizen cannot own a mortar or grenade launcher. The Government has decided that for us. Do you know that Constitutionally and according to Federal Firearms possession laws, a police officer, either local OR state has no authority to take your weapons unless you are suspected of a crime. If I am stopped on my way top the target range and get stopped by the police for a traffic stop and I am in possession of my legally registered firearm, they have no authority to take possession of it. NONE.

Do you know that Constitutionally and according to Federal Firearms possession laws, a police officer, either local OR state has no authority to take your weapons unless you are suspected of a crime

You see there's the rub the Constitution doesn't say anything about crime in relation to arms, the thinking hadn't got that far, but no one challences that a criminal should not be disarmed, so it naturally follows that certain situations are excepted.

The idea that an armed population would be successful in repelling a well armed force of trained troops in the twenty-first century is fantasy. Urban warfare is the worst sort of warfare, high casuality rate and slow progress and there may be some successes but fire power will prevail. Perhaps the fantasy is bouyed by the success of insurgencies in Libya and maybe Syria, but that sort of thinking is very out of date. In Libya the insurgents had help and it took months, in Syria the insurgents have not had help and it goes on relentlessly. You have a standing army to protect against invasion, you have a police force to stop crime, You don't need semi automatic military style weapons or any other military weapon

The sack of Washington in 1814 proved conclusively that relying on a militia to defend against a military force was fantasy but you still cling to the idea

[smoothy]

you see there's the rub the Constitution doesn't say anything about crime in relation to arms, the thinking hadn't got that far, but noone challences that a criminal should not be disarmed, so it naturally follows that certain situations are excepted.

The idea that an armed population would be successful in repelling a well armed force of trained troops in the twenty-first century is fantasy. Urban warfare is the worst sort of warfare, high casuality rate and slow progress and there may be some successes but fire power will prevail. Perhaps the fantasy is bouyed by the success of insurgencies in Libya and maybe Syria, but that sort of thinking is very out of date. In Libya the insurgents had help and it took months, in Syria the insurgents have not had help and it goes on relentlessly. You have a standing army to protect against invasion, you have a police force to stop crime, You don't need semi automatic military style weapons or any other military weapon

The sack of Washington in 1814 proved conclusively that relying on a militia to defend against a military force was fantasy but you still cling to the idea

That's the typical liberal argument...

If there really isn't a chance the people could overthrow a tyranical socialist government... then why are the people that lean socialist so concerneed about denying the people their constitutional right to own guns... except that maybe that assumption is wrong? And that only the most hard core socialists/ communists in the Military at that moment would not stop attacking an armed populace that is fighting back.

[paraclete]

Thats the typical liberal argument....

If there really isn't a chance the people could overthrow a tyranical socialist government...then why are the people that lean socialist so concerneed about denying the people their constitutional right to own guns....except that maybe that assumption is wrong? And that only the most hard core socialists/ communists in the Military at that moment would not stop attacking an armed populace that is fighting back.?

You don't get it, it isn't about denying a right, it is about removing a threat, about protecting the innocents. Again it is fantasy that an armed population is going to stop a mass murder or any murder for that matter, for that to happen everyone would have to carrying and willing to get involved. Vigilantism is not a solution. It is fantasy that an armed population is going to rise up and take back the streets, there surely has been enough provocation and it hasn't happened. Where is this threat to the population you speak of, it is in your mind! The day of the cowboy is over

[smoothy]

You don't get it, it isn't about denying a right, it is about removing a threat, about protecting the innocents. again it is fantasy that an armed population is going to stop a mass murder or any murder for that matter, for that to happen everyone would have to carrying and willing to get involved. Vigilantism is not a solution. It is fantasy that an armed population is going to rise up and take back the streets, there surely has been enough provocation and it hasn't happened. where is this threat to the population you speak of, it is in your mind! the day of the cowboy is over

IT IS ABOUT DENYING A RIGHT... trying to say or claim anything else is nothing but smoke and mirrors. And a typical liberal tactic. Change the topic.. call it anything else... do anything but call it what it is.

Luntics running looses on the st4reets are a threat... yet they are allowed to run free...

Illegals are a threat yet they aren't being removed... Socialists and COmmunists are a threat and yet they are allowed to run free... people with criminal records that are repeat offenders are allowed to run free..

Want to talk about real threats... those are the real threats people face every day... not people owning guns legally who actually have a legal RIGHT to have them... something none of the previous threats have...

[excon]

Hello smoothy:

people with criminal records that are repeat offenders are allowed to run free..

I'm not a threat. Commies, socialists and your local leaf blower aren't threats either..

I thought right wingers loved the Constitution... No, huh?

Excon