Only 4 Gun Laws Needed - IMHO - Page 2

treo · January 28, 2009, 09:51 PM

Only one gun law is needed and it should read as follows:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

JohnSmiles · January 28, 2009, 10:30 PM

It is no one elses responsibility to second guess the nature of intentions anyone else.
Unless you have a valid reason NOT to sell ANY gun to a person, that should cover it right there.
You are not your brothers keeper . . . its an old concept.
Crime happens, and crazy people will always exist.
It is not up to me OR YOU to be held responsible for what someone else does.
There should BE no gun laws, other than age requirements.
Just my thoughts.

RedneckFur · January 29, 2009, 01:04 AM

Would I be correct in assuming that you want to take a "moderate, common sense" approach to freedom of speech, religion, press, and the freedom from unlawful search and seisure?

I mean, honestly, wouldn't it make life a little easier for all of us if we regluated these things too? No more insults, controversal books, strange religions. And police could be more effecient if they didnt need warrants.

When you compromise a given right, you start to loose that right. The 2nd amendment right has been eroded by decades of anti gun legislation. "4 laws" like yours would only drive the final few nails in the coffin.

We dont need to "police ourselves to keep the goverment off our back". We just need to keep the goverment off our back. It takes as much effort to write up compromising gun laws as it does to write your congresscritters in washington and tell them you want your rights back.

MD_Willington · January 29, 2009, 01:31 AM

#3

Have you read anything other than the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution

Read Section #1 of the 14th...

Also there are already laws on the book pertaining to NON-immigrant Aliens...

:barf:

chucksolo69 · January 29, 2009, 10:48 AM

As the originator of this thread I am glad it got such a great response. I noticed that the responders to the thread were spread out pretty much all over the country; excellent. Now let me tell you why I posted this thread. As you have almost certainly acertained, I live in the great state of California. But.....much as I love my native state, we who live here are currently in a quasi state of siege, not only from our own home grown bands of gansters, but also from drug cartel violence right across the border from us (San Diego) in Mexico. About a year ago in my home town, a police officer, and friend, was gunned down during a traffic stop while assisting a fellow officer. The perpetrators, gang members, killed this public servant for no reason other than "Kicks." These people used a .22 caliber rifle mounted with a scope and killed the officer from about 100 yards away. The bullet missed his ballistic vest and found its way into his armpit. Dan died before the ambulance could get to him. He left behind a wife and infant son. Now, no one knows how these people got the guns, but, that is really irrelevant because dead is dead. So, let me pose this question to all of you who advocate no form of regulation on weapons. How, if there is no way to regulate, do we keep weapons out of the hands of lawless people? I am a card carrying member of the NRA and always, always defend peoples right to own and carry weapons. Here in California, law abiding citizens are penalized constantly when trying to buy guns. We can only purchase one handgun a month, must have a card certifying that we have passed a test and wait 10 days to pick up the gun. Still after all that, weapons still find their way into the hands of lawless idiots like the ones that killed the fine officer I wrote about. Don't you think that with absolutely no regulation whatsoever, law abiding people would be left to staying behind closed doors in order to be safe? What would you do?

mikejonestkd · January 29, 2009, 11:00 AM

Sorry to hear of the loss of your friend.

Restricting the rights of the law abiding citizens will not have any effect on the activities of the lawless, in fact, it could make the law abiding easier targets for more bold acts by the lawless.

bclark1 · January 29, 2009, 11:11 AM

To answer your last question - how to keep guns from lawless people - you can't. They are by definition, lawless. Laws won't regulate their behavior. How do we stop the flow of drugs? We can't. Illegal visitors? We can't. Gray market goods, other contraband? We can't. Many of these are as hard or harder to conceal and transport than guns and ammo. The market will deliver whatever people want, whether it's on the up or under the table. The best you can do is hope that society is prepared to deal with the byproducts of those uncontrollable incidences. Goes back to a quote often attributed to Jefferson: "The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent." You cannot regulate those that do not submit to regulation.

All gun laws are inherently preposterous. It's illegal to kill, batter and assault without strong justification. It is always illegal to steal or vandalize. Why do we need to clutter, complicate and inconvenience most people's lives because we lack the spine to enforce the existing laws?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Gun laws are the ultimate in beauracratic redundancy. Paraphrasing, they say "Hey, let's make it illegal to do something that's already illegal." That'll teach those crooks, they are now exponentially criminal! Certainly, life plus six months is a greater disincentive to violate than just life!

Europe's gun-free zones still have huge violence problems. A desire for gun-control, while scoring "feel-good" points that seem to run the country today, shows a complete lack of understanding on the issues. Very rudimentary logic would suggest that it is unlikely that any benefit will be realized. Prevention in violence is better served by the deterrent of an equal or better equipped nonviolent civilian populus, or perhaps going the other direction and forfeiting a great deal of the liberties that allow people the freedom of motion to contemplate lawbreaking in the first place. The latter is no possibility in the US, but there are plenty of places elsewhere that would respect that desire.

hillbillyshooter · January 29, 2009, 12:44 PM

Stupid post. Actually asking for gun laws. You ask for 4, be prepared to get a little more than 4. In what world does that make any sense for the victim of a robbery to be held accountable for his/her stolen property? What if you fo some reason didn't know your property was stolen (out of town for a few weeks and house broken into)? Guess under your flawed logic and reasoning, that person has to go to jail for not being home. No thanks, I'll pass on your 4 laws if I can.

Edit: Bolded comment insults the OP and normally would be deleted and a warning given. - Antipitas

dburkhead · January 29, 2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Purchasing, owning, possessing a firearm is a birthright for citizens here.

Says who? The Constitution doesn't say that. It says "the right of the people," not "the right of Citizens."

And, as I have mentioned uptopic, which other rights are you willing to restrict to non-citizens who are legally visiting the United States (short or long term)? Does the fifth go away? How about the 4th? The 1st? The eighth? The 3rd? Which?

Dustin0 · January 29, 2009, 12:51 PM

What about opening NICS to the public so you dont need to have a dealer do the tranfer?

chucksolo69 · January 29, 2009, 01:27 PM

Hillbilly Shooter, "Stupid Post" is a matter of opinion. Let's keep from being insulting and give pertinent opinions. Also you might want to read the entire thread before posting.

Edit: This entire post is a response to a perceived insult, and it therefore itself subject to being deleted. - Antipitas

chucksolo69 · January 29, 2009, 01:35 PM

Burkhead, anyone living close to any International Border is going to disagree with you. While I praise people who come here and live and work legally, pay taxes and embrace our society, I still think that ONLY citizens should have the right to own a firearm. When you have a flood of people coming across the borders, I think it would be prudent to prove citizenship before you can buy a gun. What is so heinous about that? Think about it, we are one of the very, very few countries in the world that don't patrol their borders with troops. We can't let all those illegals have guns. Green cards are too easy to fake to make that a reliable check for legal status.

Al Norris · January 29, 2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chucksolo69

Let's keep from being insulting and give pertinent opinions.

Something to which, if reported (this button -->

) us mods would deal with, instead of having to also deal with your post (or anyone else's), because you responded to it.

Yet it's also hard to post further "pertinent opinions" on a subject that myself and several others have made, that you refuse to rebut.

All in all, I'm leaving the posts, but marked up to illustrate what was wrong.

Note to members: Let's keep the insults out of discussions and if you find something like that, report it, don't respond to it. It may take a little time to get to it, but we do get to it.

chucksolo69 · January 29, 2009, 02:16 PM

No, I am not refusing to rebut. What I am basically doing is watching the thread to see what the responses are. So far, based upon geographical location, the responses have been universally hostile. It's interesting to note that responses that say the only law needed is the second amendment come from relatively low urban crime areas; or so it seems. You know, basically I also agree that gun control laws do nothing especially since trying to control an inanimate object is ridiculous. I posted this thread basically because here in California, there is absolutely no way that we are going to reform our highly restrictive gun control laws without some kind of major compromise. The issues we have with gang violence and the violence in the inner cities in general will keep the Liberals who control our state government from accepting any type of logical reform. I and most pro gun Californians would love to get suggestions we could use.

dburkhead · January 29, 2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Burkhead, anyone living close to any International Border is going to disagree with you. While I praise people who come here and live and work legally, pay taxes and embrace our society, I still think that ONLY citizens should have the right to own a firearm. When you have a flood of people coming across the borders, I think it would be prudent to prove citizenship before you can buy a gun. What is so heinous about that? Think about it, we are one of the very, very few countries in the world that don't patrol their borders with troops. We can't let all those illegals have guns. Green cards are too easy to fake to make that a reliable check for legal status

You mean that people who live near an international border are incapable of differentiating between people in the US legally and others?

"We can't let all those illegals have guns." This may come as a shock to you but it's already illegal for non-immigrant aliens (which would, by definition) exclude illegals to purchase guns in the US. All that your citing illegals having guns proves is that that kind of prohibition doesn't work.

And if a green card is too easy to fake, so is "proof" of citizenship. You don't even have to create a new ID, just steal one. And wouldn't it be wonderful to be the person whose ID was stolen to buy a gun then have that gun used in a crime and guess who they come after from your #2?

dburkhead · January 29, 2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

I posted this thread basically because here in California, there is absolutely no way that we are going to reform our highly restrictive gun control laws without some kind of major compromise.

Now that's a bit of a different question. There's a difference between what I think should be and what I think is politically achievable.

However, I do think that "compromise" which amounts to cut off your right arm because they're asking for right and left. And then when they come back and ask for left arm and right leg, cut off the left arm. And when they come back and ask for both legs, cut off the right, is a bad idea no matter how politically achievable. It's that kind of "compromise" the anti-rights folk have been offering.

Instead of compromise, think of the same way the anti-rights folks stole the rights in the first place--small, achievable steps. Don't try to get everything all at once. Instead, find some small bit that's amenable to change and get it changed in the pro-rights direction. Then reentrench at the new position and look for the next small bit. And so on and so on. That's how we've lost our rights over the last 74 years (counting from NFA--although it could be argued that it started long before that). It's the same kind of approach that can be taken to win them back.

chucksolo69 · January 29, 2009, 03:18 PM

Advocating strong penalties for use of a firearm in the comission of a crime is an excellent idea, however, isn't this kind of ex post facto. It is kind of like calling the police after the crime is commited, right. The police can't protect you.....so on and so forth. What I want to know is how the people posting here and advocating absolutely no restricton on gun sales or ownership to anyone, would keep the criminal element from obtaining weapons; I am understanding right, there should be absolutely no restrictions on anyone posessing or purchasing firearms regardless of criminal past; correct? So far only one person who posted addressed that question with a "You can't" comment. Is there no thought as to "prevention" of violent gun crime by criminals to begin with? See, this comes full circle. Many of you are going to come back and say, "Criminals don't obey laws so, gun control only affects law abiding citizens." How then, as law abiding citizens do we take responsibility for our gun ownership so that guns don't fall into the hands of criminals. I doubt that most of you keep ALL your guns in a safe. You must keep one or two out for defensive purposes, right? So if one of those guns falls into the hands of a criminal through theft, isn't it your responsibility since you failed to keep that gun secure? See where I am going with this. None of you have addressed what our responsibilities are as gun owners. Should there be penalties for being an irresponsible gun owner? Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Crap happens."

bclark1 · January 29, 2009, 03:31 PM

The flaw of the above reasoning is you are assuming a closed system. That's not the case. You can ban gun sales 100%, today, and crime using guns would persist. They would come from Mexico and the Carribean, they would be stolen from legal owners, police and military, they would come from somewhere. And if you dried them up around the world, people would use more shanks and clubs. Where there's a will, there's a way - and that rings especially true with those bent on thwarting the law.

We can't prevent violence. We've known that since Cain wasted Abel. "Gun violence" is in no way markedly different from any other violence, but for the irrational emotionalism attached to it by people who don't think the issue through. The real question is: How do we minimize the consequences of the lawless' violent intentions? Guns only come into the calculus as a peripheral technological equalizer - they are not a focal point of the discourse on violence itself.

dburkhead · January 29, 2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

What I want to know is how the people posting here and advocating absolutely no restricton on gun sales or ownership to anyone, would keep the criminal element from obtaining weapons;

That's like asking how to keep the sun from rising in the morning, or the ground from getting wet after a rain. You can't. The one thing that 74 plus years of gun control has taught is that gun control, for the claimed purpose of keeping guns away from criminals does not work. I mean, people make guns from scratch using hand tools and primitive power tools. All the efforts of the DEA, the Coast Guard, and various local authorities aren't able to stem the tide of illegal drugs. How can they possibly stem the tide of "illegal guns"?

You can't keep criminals from obtaining guns if they want them. I mean, look at Mumbai. India has all the gun control Sarah Brady could want and still a handful of individuals were able to obtain fully automatic weapons and spread fear and chaos in their wake.

Gun control doesn't work, at least not for its stated purpose. And, furthermore, the folk in office proposing and passing these gun control bills know this. And when the stated purpose doesn't work, one has to wonder what unstated purpose drives the continued efforts to pass more and more gun control.

chucksolo69 · January 29, 2009, 03:56 PM

OK agreed. So anyone and everyone should be able to procure handguns, etc., correct?

Al Norris · January 29, 2009, 04:10 PM

Chuck, by your own admission, you started the thread under false pretenses. Added to that, you don't appear to want to engage in meaningful discourse with those that have actually pointed out the flaws in your "4 laws." You've had ample time to do so, yet you still insist upon "watching the thread to see what the responses are."

That sir is nothing more than stirring the pot.

Thread closed.

January 28, 2009, 09:51 PM	#26
treo Junior member Join Date: March 2, 2008 Posts: 22	I am stunned that no one has said this yet Only one gun law is needed and it should read as follows: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

January 28, 2009, 10:30 PM	#27
JohnSmiles Junior Member Join Date: January 19, 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 13	It is no one elses responsibility to second guess the nature of intentions anyone else. Unless you have a valid reason NOT to sell ANY gun to a person, that should cover it right there. You are not your brothers keeper . . . its an old concept. Crime happens, and crazy people will always exist. It is not up to me OR YOU to be held responsible for what someone else does. There should BE no gun laws, other than age requirements. Just my thoughts. __________________ "While I understand I may not be right, you need to accept the possibility I may not be wrong either" "It is only America as long as government is controlled 100% by the People" "Do not allow yourself to become so Open Minded your Brains FALL OUT"

January 29, 2009, 01:04 AM	#28
RedneckFur Senior Member Join Date: January 14, 2007 Location: Central NC Posts: 1,424	Would I be correct in assuming that you want to take a "moderate, common sense" approach to freedom of speech, religion, press, and the freedom from unlawful search and seisure? I mean, honestly, wouldn't it make life a little easier for all of us if we regluated these things too? No more insults, controversal books, strange religions. And police could be more effecient if they didnt need warrants. When you compromise a given right, you start to loose that right. The 2nd amendment right has been eroded by decades of anti gun legislation. "4 laws" like yours would only drive the final few nails in the coffin. We dont need to "police ourselves to keep the goverment off our back". We just need to keep the goverment off our back. It takes as much effort to write up compromising gun laws as it does to write your congresscritters in washington and tell them you want your rights back. __________________ In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -George Orwell Last edited by RedneckFur; January 29, 2009 at 01:21 AM.

January 29, 2009, 11:00 AM	#31
mikejonestkd Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2006 Location: Brockport, NY Posts: 3,716	Sorry to hear of the loss of your friend. Restricting the rights of the law abiding citizens will not have any effect on the activities of the lawless, in fact, it could make the law abiding easier targets for more bold acts by the lawless. __________________ You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.

January 29, 2009, 12:44 PM	#33
hillbillyshooter Senior Member Join Date: October 30, 2008 Location: Wild, Wonderful West Virginia Posts: 315	Stupid post. Actually asking for gun laws. You ask for 4, be prepared to get a little more than 4. In what world does that make any sense for the victim of a robbery to be held accountable for his/her stolen property? What if you fo some reason didn't know your property was stolen (out of town for a few weeks and house broken into)? Guess under your flawed logic and reasoning, that person has to go to jail for not being home. No thanks, I'll pass on your 4 laws if I can. Edit: Bolded comment insults the OP and normally would be deleted and a warning given. - Antipitas __________________ The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson Last edited by Al Norris; January 29, 2009 at 01:45 PM. Reason: Example of what not to do

January 29, 2009, 01:31 AM	#29
MD_Willington Senior Member Join Date: August 17, 2005 Location: SE WA State. Posts: 563	#3 Have you read anything other than the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution Read Section #1 of the 14th... Also there are already laws on the book pertaining to NON-immigrant Aliens... :barf:

January 29, 2009, 10:48 AM	#30
chucksolo69 Junior member Join Date: January 21, 2009 Posts: 255	As the originator of this thread I am glad it got such a great response. I noticed that the responders to the thread were spread out pretty much all over the country; excellent. Now let me tell you why I posted this thread. As you have almost certainly acertained, I live in the great state of California. But.....much as I love my native state, we who live here are currently in a quasi state of siege, not only from our own home grown bands of gansters, but also from drug cartel violence right across the border from us (San Diego) in Mexico. About a year ago in my home town, a police officer, and friend, was gunned down during a traffic stop while assisting a fellow officer. The perpetrators, gang members, killed this public servant for no reason other than "Kicks." These people used a .22 caliber rifle mounted with a scope and killed the officer from about 100 yards away. The bullet missed his ballistic vest and found its way into his armpit. Dan died before the ambulance could get to him. He left behind a wife and infant son. Now, no one knows how these people got the guns, but, that is really irrelevant because dead is dead. So, let me pose this question to all of you who advocate no form of regulation on weapons. How, if there is no way to regulate, do we keep weapons out of the hands of lawless people? I am a card carrying member of the NRA and always, always defend peoples right to own and carry weapons. Here in California, law abiding citizens are penalized constantly when trying to buy guns. We can only purchase one handgun a month, must have a card certifying that we have passed a test and wait 10 days to pick up the gun. Still after all that, weapons still find their way into the hands of lawless idiots like the ones that killed the fine officer I wrote about. Don't you think that with absolutely no regulation whatsoever, law abiding people would be left to staying behind closed doors in order to be safe? What would you do?

January 29, 2009, 11:11 AM	#32
bclark1 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,531	To answer your last question - how to keep guns from lawless people - you can't. They are by definition, lawless. Laws won't regulate their behavior. How do we stop the flow of drugs? We can't. Illegal visitors? We can't. Gray market goods, other contraband? We can't. Many of these are as hard or harder to conceal and transport than guns and ammo. The market will deliver whatever people want, whether it's on the up or under the table. The best you can do is hope that society is prepared to deal with the byproducts of those uncontrollable incidences. Goes back to a quote often attributed to Jefferson: "The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent." You cannot regulate those that do not submit to regulation. All gun laws are inherently preposterous. It's illegal to kill, batter and assault without strong justification. It is always illegal to steal or vandalize. Why do we need to clutter, complicate and inconvenience most people's lives because we lack the spine to enforce the existing laws? I've said it before, I'll say it again. Gun laws are the ultimate in beauracratic redundancy. Paraphrasing, they say "Hey, let's make it illegal to do something that's already illegal." That'll teach those crooks, they are now exponentially criminal! Certainly, life plus six months is a greater disincentive to violate than just life! Europe's gun-free zones still have huge violence problems. A desire for gun-control, while scoring "feel-good" points that seem to run the country today, shows a complete lack of understanding on the issues. Very rudimentary logic would suggest that it is unlikely that any benefit will be realized. Prevention in violence is better served by the deterrent of an equal or better equipped nonviolent civilian populus, or perhaps going the other direction and forfeiting a great deal of the liberties that allow people the freedom of motion to contemplate lawbreaking in the first place. The latter is no possibility in the US, but there are plenty of places elsewhere that would respect that desire.

January 29, 2009, 12:51 PM	#35
Dustin0 Senior Member Join Date: May 15, 2008 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 701	What about opening NICS to the public so you dont need to have a dealer do the tranfer?

January 29, 2009, 01:27 PM	#36
chucksolo69 Junior member Join Date: January 21, 2009 Posts: 255	Hillbilly Shooter, "Stupid Post" is a matter of opinion. Let's keep from being insulting and give pertinent opinions. Also you might want to read the entire thread before posting. Edit: This entire post is a response to a perceived insult, and it therefore itself subject to being deleted. - Antipitas Last edited by Al Norris; January 29, 2009 at 01:43 PM. Reason: editiorial comment

January 29, 2009, 01:35 PM	#37
chucksolo69 Junior member Join Date: January 21, 2009 Posts: 255	Burkhead, anyone living close to any International Border is going to disagree with you. While I praise people who come here and live and work legally, pay taxes and embrace our society, I still think that ONLY citizens should have the right to own a firearm. When you have a flood of people coming across the borders, I think it would be prudent to prove citizenship before you can buy a gun. What is so heinous about that? Think about it, we are one of the very, very few countries in the world that don't patrol their borders with troops. We can't let all those illegals have guns. Green cards are too easy to fake to make that a reliable check for legal status.

January 29, 2009, 02:16 PM	#39
chucksolo69 Junior member Join Date: January 21, 2009 Posts: 255	No, I am not refusing to rebut. What I am basically doing is watching the thread to see what the responses are. So far, based upon geographical location, the responses have been universally hostile. It's interesting to note that responses that say the only law needed is the second amendment come from relatively low urban crime areas; or so it seems. You know, basically I also agree that gun control laws do nothing especially since trying to control an inanimate object is ridiculous. I posted this thread basically because here in California, there is absolutely no way that we are going to reform our highly restrictive gun control laws without some kind of major compromise. The issues we have with gang violence and the violence in the inner cities in general will keep the Liberals who control our state government from accepting any type of logical reform. I and most pro gun Californians would love to get suggestions we could use.

January 29, 2009, 03:18 PM	#42
chucksolo69 Junior member Join Date: January 21, 2009 Posts: 255	Advocating strong penalties for use of a firearm in the comission of a crime is an excellent idea, however, isn't this kind of ex post facto. It is kind of like calling the police after the crime is commited, right. The police can't protect you.....so on and so forth. What I want to know is how the people posting here and advocating absolutely no restricton on gun sales or ownership to anyone, would keep the criminal element from obtaining weapons; I am understanding right, there should be absolutely no restrictions on anyone posessing or purchasing firearms regardless of criminal past; correct? So far only one person who posted addressed that question with a "You can't" comment. Is there no thought as to "prevention" of violent gun crime by criminals to begin with? See, this comes full circle. Many of you are going to come back and say, "Criminals don't obey laws so, gun control only affects law abiding citizens." How then, as law abiding citizens do we take responsibility for our gun ownership so that guns don't fall into the hands of criminals. I doubt that most of you keep ALL your guns in a safe. You must keep one or two out for defensive purposes, right? So if one of those guns falls into the hands of a criminal through theft, isn't it your responsibility since you failed to keep that gun secure? See where I am going with this. None of you have addressed what our responsibilities are as gun owners. Should there be penalties for being an irresponsible gun owner? Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Crap happens."

January 29, 2009, 03:31 PM	#43
bclark1 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,531	The flaw of the above reasoning is you are assuming a closed system. That's not the case. You can ban gun sales 100%, today, and crime using guns would persist. They would come from Mexico and the Carribean, they would be stolen from legal owners, police and military, they would come from somewhere. And if you dried them up around the world, people would use more shanks and clubs. Where there's a will, there's a way - and that rings especially true with those bent on thwarting the law. We can't prevent violence. We've known that since Cain wasted Abel. "Gun violence" is in no way markedly different from any other violence, but for the irrational emotionalism attached to it by people who don't think the issue through. The real question is: How do we minimize the consequences of the lawless' violent intentions? Guns only come into the calculus as a peripheral technological equalizer - they are not a focal point of the discourse on violence itself.

January 29, 2009, 03:56 PM	#45
chucksolo69 Junior member Join Date: January 21, 2009 Posts: 255	OK agreed. So anyone and everyone should be able to procure handguns, etc., correct?

January 29, 2009, 04:10 PM	#46
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Chuck, by your own admission, you started the thread under false pretenses. Added to that, you don't appear to want to engage in meaningful discourse with those that have actually pointed out the flaws in your "4 laws." You've had ample time to do so, yet you still insist upon "watching the thread to see what the responses are." That sir is nothing more than stirring the pot. Thread closed.