NRA sues San Fransisco Over Gun Ban

[TaylorMade]

NRA sues to overturn gun law----> 2nd Story Down, LATimes (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs28-2008jun28,0,3026090.story)

The National Rifle Assn. sued the San Francisco Housing Authority on Friday to overturn a ban on guns in city-administered public housing -- one day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people have a right to have handguns in their homes.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The Plaintiff in this case isn't just the NRA, it's a gay man who wants to be able to carry a gun in order to defend himself. Obviously, most know I do think LBGT people should be armed in order to defend themselves against those that mean them serious harm. But what I am wondering is, does SF even have a case to keep that ordinance?

*Taylor*

[chulainn2]

San Fran is in violation of the law. I dont understand liberals and their mental capcaity. Which one of these words do they not understand?

".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
2nd ammendment

I think liberal politicians are scared of armed americans because someday we might just turn on them, especially when the enviromenatilsts wont let us drill oil as its going to $7 a gallon and our economy is cratering.

[eddy10]

Hooray for the NRA. They are trying to protect our second amendment rights.
NRA is a group worth joining.

[canuckotter]

I've heard a bit of discussion around that recent ruling, and apparently one thing that's not clear is whether *states* can enact handgun bans. DC definitely can't, because it's a federal jurisdiction, but states might be able to.

Also, being that this isn't a blanket ban, just a ban on bringing weapons into public housing... My bet is that it'll be upheld. There are any number of places you can't take firearms, and there's no ban here on owning or purchasing or using firearms, just as long as you're not taking them into property owned and maintained by the city. There are plenty of compelling reasons why public housing might refuse to allow weapons on any properties they control.

[truckr221]

In response to canuckotter. What you dont understand is that public housing in USA is not owned by the state or the federal gov't. It is privately owned property that has the rent subsidized by the fed. gov't. But even that is trumped because it becomes someone home whenever they move in, regardless of who pays the rent. And Americans believe that you should feel free from crimes inside your home. and have the ability to protect yourself inside your home. if you cant go home, you cant go anywhere. There are constitutional laws in place to prevent criminals from owning guns. But if those people obeyed laws, they wouldn't be criminals to start with. Many have said that guns should be banned in total. Or the ammunition for guns. Considering the success of most all country's drug law's. I think it safe to say again....since only the "druggys" have drugs. Gun bans will only allow the murder's to have guns. It is kind of a leveling of the playing field. Besides it is so simple to construct a "weapon" that fires a projectile from commonly used hardware items, And making ammunition is even easer. Altho the high quality bullets we have today look like they need expensive machines to make. That is because they are made to military spec. and to be reloaded. But the common thug does not reload shell casing's. So the projectile need only withstand one firing. That can be done using notebook paper. And a simple no.16 screw from the hardware store. So you say ban gun powder??? Do you know easy that is to make?? And there are better, tho less durable materials to use as a propellant. But then a criminal doesn't need a durable weapon, such as a hunter or a soldier would. It only needs to work on the night they go out. So who has the time or the knowledge to construct this stuff on there own , you ask? Only Criminals while you are at work making a living, and they aren't.

As you may have guessed Yes I am for LAW ABIDING persons owning weapons.
As you may have also guessed I grew up VERY POOR in Appalachia where being able to shoot meant meat for dinner instead of only the veggies canned from last summers garden.

Before you fire off your rabid email ...I WILL NOT ENGAGE in ANY kind of argument over this. I did not join this sight to change anyones views or lifestyle. This IS my last word on this..... Love ya all !!!!

[jamieknyc]

San Fran is in violation of the law. I dont understand liberals and their mental capcaity. Which one of these words do they not understand?

".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
2nd ammendment

I think liberal politicians are scared of armed americans because someday we might just turn on them, especially when the enviromenatilsts wont let us drill oil as its going to $7 a gallon and our economy is cratering.

the Supreme Courts' recent decision does NOT state that the Second Amendement gives wing nuts the right to shoot people who disagree with their political beliefs. This is not Germany in 1933.

[eddy10]

Well said Trucker.

A person should be able to carry their weapon anywhere. Even in the now gun free zones. Seems like only the killers are allowed to carry in schools, post offices, etc. where law abiding citizens are defenseless.

[Bluebiyou]

An aggressive and perfectly timed stab into the heart of liberal-land. We have been and shall hopefully always be a nation of riflemen.
Like the armed-to-the-teeth Swiss, a nation's best perpetual guarantee of freedom is a well armed populace. Secondarily, a surviving economy and an untraceable yet uncounterfeitable currency, freedom of speech and press, etc. It's funny how we have to make more rules as time goes by and technology develops.

[nicco413]

I believe that Switzerland has the lowest crime rates per capita in Europe and the highest number of guns in private houses too.
I have heard that in the states which allow their citizens to carry guns and to defend themselves against intruders amd malfeasors a similar situation exists.
Nicco

[bisexualinsocal]

Score one for the Constitution.

Constitution:1

Liberals:0


Liberals are shooting blanks (which explains why they rarely reproduce themselves)

[TaylorMade]

the Supreme Courts' recent decision does NOT state that the Second Amendement gives wing nuts the right to shoot people who disagree with their political beliefs. This is not Germany in 1933.

Say it louder, some people on the forum don't know that. :tongue:

*Taylor*

[jamieknyc]

I believe that Switzerland has the lowest crime rates per capita in Europe and the highest number of guns in private houses too.
I have heard that in the states which allow their citizens to carry guns and to defend themselves against intruders amd malfeasors a similar situation exists.
Nicco

Contrary to popular belief, Switzerland is not a gun-toting armed camp. I have relatives in that country, so I am not just making this up.

Another country that people have misconceptions about is Israel, where people who are on military service or who live in certain designated areas may carry a gun. However, before you use that gun, you had better make damn sure that you are in the right in doing so, because unauthorized firing of a gun carries a mandatory eight-year jail sentence in Israel.

[TaylorMade]

Contrary to popular belief, Switzerland is not a gun-toting armed camp. I have relatives in that country, so I am not just making this up.

Another country that people have misconceptions about is Israel, where people who are on military service or who live in certain designated areas may carry a gun. However, before you use that gun, you had better make damn sure that you are in the right in doing so, because unauthorized firing of a gun carries a mandatory eight-year jail sentence in Israel.

Does that cover the celebratory firing in the air thing that some Palestinians and Arabs do? 'Cause I'd think the West Bank would be a ghost town. (Yes, that was meant to be a little funny :bigrin:)

*Taylor*

[chulainn2]

Hooray for the NRA. They are trying to protect our second amendment rights.
NRA is a group worth joining.

I am a member and for several yrs.

[*pan*]

hmmm, the recent ruleing has been long comming, should have been ruled on 30 years ago, they just kept avoiding it just like a lot of other cases they keep shelving in order to avoid them. these citys need to be sued. california needs to be sued for all it's restrictive gun laws along with other states. all i have to say is it's about time.

[bisexualinsocal]

Taylor-I'm shocked that Israel is still getting support from the US and other governments, but sadly, it's not all that surprising. Pretty disgusting, yes, but not surprising.

At the risk of making a lot of enemies, I'm going to be honest, because it's what I do.

I think Israel is a crock and has been ever since the first time someone (be it the UN or someone else some thousand years ago) suggested ousting the Palestinians from "Israel's chosen land." They left, and while I can sympathize with the fact that they feel like they have no homeland, it doesn't justify their ultimatum to Palestine. It would be great if they could coexist peacefully, but it's been made pretty clear that neither side wants this. They're probably going to keep ripping each other to shreds until there's no one left to fight. I had good friends in Israel half a dozen years ago, and even then, those friends (both within and not in the military) wanted nothing to do with peaceful negotiations.

The Hebrews and Judaism were in Israel LONG, LONG before the invention that is Islam. Long before their Mohammed was even born so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[bisexualinsocal]

That doesn't matter, Israel's actions towards the Palestinian people are hypocritical and disgusting.

And what actions are those? I'm just curious.

[chulainn2]

Jamie, the German people did not have guns, I belive ol Adolph says it all- see below.
An unarmed mass are called sheep.


the Supreme Courts' recent decision does NOT state that the Second Amendement gives wing nuts the right to shoot people who disagree with their political beliefs. This is not Germany in 1933.


The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

[bisexualinsocal]

see the link I posted- http://www.soundofegypt.com/palestinian/adult/massacres.htm



You're linking to a site which lists acts of war between Israel and it's Arab neighbors. Whew, I thought you were going to list peace-time atrocities.

But asking people to sympathize with the Palestinians is a failed cause considering that Israel was attacked by EVERY ONE of it's neighbors since it's founding.

If you really want security for the Palestinians, you'd whine about the real criminals who to this day are violating the peace... Hamas.

[bisexualinsocal]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that I do support Hamas or the PLO.

Israel is no better so don't make excuses for them.

That's a clever way to avoid the fact that Hamas is solely responsible for violating truce after truce and hiding amongst the Palestinian population like cowards.

[Bluebiyou]

I could be quite wrong about the Swiss, but as I understand, informed by a German friend years ago; all males of Switzerland upon turning 18 years of age undergo military training for two years (with alternatives for conciousous objectors). Upon completion of which, these citizens return to their homes with fully automatic weapons and ammunition. These are subject to surprise inspection and annual retraining exercises are held until... 40 years old? But it made sense to me, if I was a burgler that if I knew that nearly every household held an automatic rifle... and someone well trained in it's usage... I would consider an alternative occupation. Similiarly, if I were Adolf Hitler trying to conquer Europe, I would avoid such a country, knowing there would be tremendous losses in house-to-house fighting; not to mention fighting a spirit of people who won't give up.
Now that the globe is a much smaller place, America would lose much in becoming weaponless (gun-less) wimps.
Remember, China and Russia, at their worst... they still had the 'right to vote'; a choice between THE PARTY candidate A, or B...
The right to weapons... REAL power in the hands of the citizenry/masses... freedom of speech... and of the press...

[canuckotter]

truckr, I wasn't aware that public housing in the US was privately owned property that the government simply paid rent for. That certainly weakens San Fran's position. There are some strong arguments they could make, but I can't imagine they'd have strong-enough arguments (short of the state passing laws allowing such targeted bans, which might be possible based on the SCOTUS ruling).

Now, an actual landlord who wanted to ban firearms on their property... I think they'd have a much stronger case. Unless your law is totally different down there (and there are some small areas where US and Canadian law are totally different, this could be one of them, I don't know) landlords already have the right to a certain level of control over what's allowed in their properties -- smoking and pet ownership, for example, are pretty commonly restricted. Since they have a compelling reason to discriminate -- pets and smokers cause damage to the property -- it's generally upheld, from what I understand. If a landlord could demonstrate that the presence of guns could reasonably be expected to reduce the value of their property, they'd probably be given the right to ban firearms in their properties. (Which wouldn't apply to the San Fran case, since they don't actually own the property in question.) Frankly, I don't think that's very likely, but I've been wrong before. :)

Remember, the ruling doesn't guarantee unlimited gun ownership for everyone under every circumstances -- like any other right, there are limits. I'm just curious what those limits will be.

[chulainn2]

truckr, I wasn't aware that public housing in the US was privately owned property that the government simply paid rent for. That certainly weakens San Fran's position. There are some strong arguments they could make, but I can't imagine they'd have strong-enough arguments (short of the state passing laws allowing such targeted bans, which might be possible based on the SCOTUS ruling).

Now, an actual landlord who wanted to ban firearms on their property... I think they'd have a much stronger case. Unless your law is totally different down there (and there are some small areas where US and Canadian law are totally different, this could be one of them, I don't know) landlords already have the right to a certain level of control over what's allowed in their properties -- smoking and pet ownership, for example, are pretty commonly restricted. Since they have a compelling reason to discriminate -- pets and smokers cause damage to the property -- it's generally upheld, from what I understand. If a landlord could demonstrate that the presence of guns could reasonably be expected to reduce the value of their property, they'd probably be given the right to ban firearms in their properties. (Which wouldn't apply to the San Fran case, since they don't actually own the property in question.) Frankly, I don't think that's very likely, but I've been wrong before. :)

Remember, the ruling doesn't guarantee unlimited gun ownership for everyone under every circumstances -- like any other right, there are limits. I'm just curious what those limits will be.




smoking or pets are no where in the Constitution of the United States. The right to bear Arms without infrigement is our 2nd Ammendment right.

[chulainn2]

sorry i was typing fast and put one too many m's in Amendment

[darkeyes]

Sighhhhh... 'mericans an ther luff a dangerous toys...:( Sad ole world...:rolleyes:

[canuckotter]

smoking or pets are no where in the Constitution of the United States. The right to bear Arms without infrigement is our 2nd Ammendment right.
Incorrect. The right to bear arms is a right, but like any other, it's not absolute. (As that SCOTUS decision pointed out.) Prohibiting someone from bringing guns into a property that you own -- even if they're renting it -- doesn't completely interfere with their right to own and bear arms. After all, they can move elsewhere, or buy their own home, or even just store their arms offsite somewhere. It's still interference, but is it any greater interference than telling people they can't run a printing press in the apartment they rent from you? And I assure you, anyone trying to run a printing press in an apartment and then fighting eviction based on freedom of the press... they're not likely to get much sympathy from the court. ;)

Of course, running a printing press in an apartment is obviously going to cause all sorts of problems that are clear to anybody with a brain. Proving that allowing guns in an apartment will cause similar problems... That's a toughie. I don't really see it happening. But if someone did find a convincing argument, I'd imagine such a ban would be upheld as entirely reasonable and keeping with the restrictions placed on other rights.

[vittoria]

San Fran is in violation of the law. I dont understand liberals and their mental capcaity. Which one of these words do they not understand?

".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
2nd ammendment

I think liberal politicians are scared of armed americans because someday we might just turn on them, especially when the enviromenatilsts wont let us drill oil as its going to $7 a gallon and our economy is cratering.

Our country is slowly turning into a 3rd world country

IMHO

I wonder...
where are all the legions of donations from other lands during our crises with the endless flooding, devastating forest fires, new orleans STILL screwed? I mean damn... the US is always more than pleased to give other countries who deal with the same things millions if not billions of dollars of "assistance"--even going so far as to threaten certain countries who dont want the help (myanmar anyone)--but who helps us??? (oh yeah thats right, we're borrowing @ 7million bucks a day from China)

Other countries are more than happy to help the US out.. out of our businesses (ie. Firestone, every fkkn thing sold at WalMart, even cars with WAY BETTER MILEAGE than our Amurikan made creations...) how many car companies have been bought out? Electronics companies? how many things are truly "Amurikan" made?

How long will it be before other countries will make their own versions of "save the children"--this time it will be OUR children needing 20 cents a day on commercials?

just a thought.

[jamieknyc]

Does that cover the celebratory firing in the air thing that some Palestinians and Arabs do? 'Cause I'd think the West Bank would be a ghost town. (Yes, that was meant to be a little funny :bigrin:)

*Taylor*

The West Bank is not subject to Israeli law.

[jamieknyc]

Jamie, the German people did not have guns, I belive ol Adolph says it all- see below.
An unarmed mass are called sheep.




The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

It would be too easy to say that your post suggests that blacks, Jews, and other minorities and political liberals should own guns to protect themselves from wing nuts.

[jamieknyc]

I could be quite wrong about the Swiss, but as I understand, informed by a German friend years ago; all males of Switzerland upon turning 18 years of age undergo military training for two years (with alternatives for conciousous objectors). Upon completion of which, these citizens return to their homes with fully automatic weapons and ammunition. These are subject to surprise inspection and annual retraining exercises are held until... 40 years old? But it made sense to me, if I was a burgler that if I knew that nearly every household held an automatic rifle... and someone well trained in it's usage... I would consider an alternative occupation. Similiarly, if I were Adolf Hitler trying to conquer Europe, I would avoid such a country, knowing there would be tremendous losses in house-to-house fighting; not to mention fighting a spirit of people who won't give up.
Now that the globe is a much smaller place, America would lose much in becoming weaponless (gun-less) wimps.
Remember, China and Russia, at their worst... they still had the 'right to vote'; a choice between THE PARTY candidate A, or B...
The right to weapons... REAL power in the hands of the citizenry/masses... freedom of speech... and of the press...

I did some research on this. In Switzerland reservists may keep their military-issue weapons in the home. Swiss law does not permit carrying weapons in public other than by reservists traveling to and from military duty, hunters with hunting rifles, and participanst in shooting-range events. Handguns may not be carried in public without a permit, which reqwuires a showing of need.

[darkeyes]

The West Bank is not subject to Israeli law.

Not a town eitha Jamie.. tee hee:tong:

[TaylorMade]

The West Bank is not subject to Israeli law.

Thanks for answering part of my question.

But celebratory gunfire in, say. . .Tel Aviv. . .will that person get 8 years?

*Taylor*

[jamieknyc]

Thanks for answering part of my question.

But celebratory gunfire in, say. . .Tel Aviv. . .will that person get 8 years?

*Taylor*

More likely it would get them killed, since people in Tel Aviv, Jews, Arabs, and foergn guest workers alike, are very jittery about suicide bombers and other terrorists, and armed soldiers and police are everywhere. But if you were arrested for doing that, you certainly would go to jail.

[Not2str8]

The notion that the recent Supreme Court ruling is somehow a blow to "liberals" is just silly. I consider myself a liberal on many socialand economic issues, but I steadfastly support the right to own a gun. It is, however, not an absolute inalienable right. I believe the government (which is us) has the right to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. There are places guns do not belong and our representatives have wisely seen to it to enact laws restricting the use of firearms in places like airplanes and courtrooms.
The definition of a "liberal" being thrown about here comes from people whom I will not let define me. It is a caricature designed to dehumanize a group of people they view as the enemy, and is in no way an accurate portrayal of millions of individuals who do NOT march in lockstep.

[chulainn2]

Jamie, Please define a wing nut.

[TaylorMade]

More likely it would get them killed, since people in Tel Aviv, Jews, Arabs, and foergn guest workers alike, are very jittery about suicide bombers and other terrorists, and armed soldiers and police are everywhere. But if you were arrested for doing that, you certainly would go to jail.


Thank you.

*Taylor*

[wolfcamp]

San Fran is in violation of the law. I dont understand liberals and their mental capcaity. Which one of these words do they not understand?

".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
2nd ammendment

I think liberal politicians are scared of armed americans because someday we might just turn on them, especially when the enviromenatilsts wont let us drill oil as its going to $7 a gallon and our economy is cratering.

I don't think it is as simple as liberal vs. conservative. I'm a liberal (if I am forced to take that label), but I am pro-gun (to a point). I grew up in a small western town where it was common to pack around a rifle or pistol in your pickup. You never knew when you might want to shoot a varmint out in the hills. On the other hand, my girl friend lived in a big city, and her daughter attended a high school with a terrible gang problem. They were scared to death of guns. So, I think it depends on context of your experience and where you live.

[12voltman59]

My position on gun control and all of that is sort of a "bi" one too-I do think that people should have the ability to defend themselves from harm and owning firearms for that purpose is just fine--but I also believe that some government controls are in order as well---

I don't think that the average person has any reason or need to own, possess or use a fully automatic weapon that fires massive amounts of rounds at super high velocity--nor should the average person have access to ammunition capable of piercing body armor like the "Black Talon" rounds that were banned. The intent purpose of a fully automatic weapon is but one thing--not to kill game animals, not to target shoot--but to kill and destroy other human beings-same for ammunition capable of piercing kevlar body armor!

It seems to me that the NRA takes an absolutist view that any government control over firearms/weapons is wrong and that the government has no power to do so-they don't like the notion of background checks and such---I could not disagree more---I think that in the government's role of trying to maintain "law and order"--government is well justified in limiting certain aspects of firearms and access to them by certain people.

I find it interesting that traditional conservatives always argue for the federal government to step out of the way in many areas of regulating the lives of people---they argued this when the federal government began to step in to stop racist types of laws and such on the books in our cities, towns, counties and states that kept black Americans from their full measure of civil and Constitutional rights.

Conservatives screamed that the federal government had no right to "tell us what to do" in how we deal with "those folks."

Conversely-I have seen "conservatives" more than willing to use the big hand of the federal and or state government to stop things like local laws that allow for medicinal use of marijuana, allowing nudity on local beaches or in other public areas, enacted laws that prevented discrimination against GLBT people and of course as in this case---laws that restrict ownership, possession and use of firearms---

In the case of New York, DC, Chicago, San Francisco and other places that city councils enacted these weapons bans that the NRA and other conservative types don't like--if you hold true to their notion that local control of things in terms of government is best--I say they, as being good conservatives who love local control, should just accept those policies for the people of those places put the people in office that made those policies and kept them-- many of the policies go back nearly 30 years now---there was no public clamor in those places to revoke those laws--Rudy Guiliani or Michael Bloomberg in NYC did not undo them--and they fall into the catergory of "conservative" politicos.

Both conservative and liberal wings are just as guilty of using the hand of big brother to control society as they see fit.

I just hate it that the "conservative" movement has been able to sell their snake oil that they are all for "getting the government off the backs of the peope!"

BS---they are just like the "evil liberals" who like to use big goverment to socially engineer society to their respective likes or dislikes--

Goverment always likes to "get on the backs of people"-it just depends upon who is running things that determines upon whose "backs" the government is on at any respective time.

Going back to the point of ownership of firearms---people who are not criminals and such should have access to possessing firearms--but not without undergoing training to have and use them correctly and wisely---when you are in the military or civilian law enforcement--one must go through a great deal of training in their use and the biggest part of that---at least for those in law enforcement (same for the Coast Guard since we dealt with civillian law enforcement too) hinges more on the individual's ability to use firearms with wisdome and discretion--via the "shoot/don't shoot" training. In that training--it determines if a person makes good judgement calls when using deadly force---and let's face it-----use of a firearm is use of deadly force and something to not undertake lightly----

In both the Coast Guard and in probation work---they might let you slide a bit if you were a few points away from hitting the target---but fail the "shoot/don't shoot" training and you lose you qualification to use firearms--no, if's, and's or but's about it!!

In my state--we do have a program for licensing to carry concealed weapons and it is good training---it teaches participants about those things and it makes you realize the heavy responsibility you take on if you chose to carry a firearm---

So to sum up this rant--I am mixed in my feelings about this issue---I have some weapons---I call them weapons and not "guns" thanks to the Gunner's Mates at Coast Guard Boot Camp in Cape May, NJ who made sure that you did not call a firearm a gun---all "guns" are weapons designed to take life of animals and or fellow human beings---they are not toys.

That the government tries to control them in some ways is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

[pasco_lol_cpl]

Ok as a instructor and collector of firearms I thought I'd peep up. There is a lot of misinformation out there. For instance, the idea of armor piercing 'Black Talon' rounds. Statements like that, which though they are untrue, get repeated enough so that people start to believe it. The evil black talon round is no more likely to pass through body armor than any other pistol round. But most hunting rounds (.308 and larger) probably will penetrate even military grade body armor or do a lot of physical damage to the wearer of said armor. As for fully automatic weapons, there hasn't been one that is legally owned* used in a crime since the 1930s. Yes you can own a fully automatic weapon or firearm. You just have to pay for a special tax stamp from the feds and then you can expect to pay about $30,000.00 (that's not a typo) for one. Why so much? Market conditions due to the 1986 National Firearms act. So the folks that can afford them are the ones least likely to get stupid with them. As for the NRA, they ain't the bogeyman that folks make them out to be most of the time nor are they the guardian angel of every 'bitter gun owner'. Heck there are multiple instances where the NRA will tell a citizen who needs their help to take a long walk off a short pier when that person needs legal aid because they are being unfairly prosecuted / persecuted. The NRA is fickle. As for protecting right, it has always been my view that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the other rights. Like the other rights, any restrictions placed upon the 2nd amendment must be narrowly focused and judicious in implementation (I.e. you cant yell fire in a crowded theater) and cannot be onerous. Right now many of the restrictions on law abiding gun owners go way beyond that threshold. I do have a problem with that. Does this mean I have a conflict with my view of 'states rights'? Nope. Why? Because the 2nd amendment is a federally declared right that each state in the union agreed to upon joining. The states surrendered the ability to infringe upon that right just the same as they cannot have anti mixed marriage laws or enact slavery. So its not snake oil. I will agree that conservatives are just as full of crap as the liberals are in that they all want to control us and make us into their own image and damn the personal freedoms that we allegedly have. As for training, I see the point in it. In fact there was a time not too long ago (the 1960s) where schools had active shooting programs on campus for teaching. There was a time when kids would not get suspended from elementary school for simply using their hands to mimic a gun while playing games. I would personally be elated if those programs were brought back. I feel that each and every individual out there who does own a firearm should take the time on their own to get properly trained in its operation, maintenance, and storage. However since this is a guaranteed right, then I feel that we can start mandating training and other onerous restrictions at the same time that we start to put journalists and protesters through the same hoops. My question is...are you (general, not specific) for freedom for all or are you of the mindset "Freedom and rights for me, but not for thee"

[chulainn2]

Well said Pasco!!!
Unfortunately as far as the schools go, they are under the control of the 60's socialist liberal dogma, the kids now are (kinda) graduating with self esteem but dumber than rocks and I pay $7,000 a year school taxes and never had a kid.
But that tax rate will be a bargain when hussain obama makes office.

[chulainn2]

I don't think it is as simple as liberal vs. conservative. I'm a liberal (if I am forced to take that label), but I am pro-gun (to a point). I grew up in a small western town where it was common to pack around a rifle or pistol in your pickup. You never knew when you might want to shoot a varmint out in the hills. On the other hand, my girl friend lived in a big city, and her daughter attended a high school with a terrible gang problem. They were scared to death of guns. So, I think it depends on context of your experience and where you live.

So true Wolf, I grew up in Texas and we had a few acres when I was young to play on- my father's escape place on weekends. I have had guns since I was 12 yo and and now 30 yrs later I still have guns, never shot anyone and I don't know of anyone who has shot someone. But I have also have never been exposed to gangs, I can certainly understand how guns would scare the trapped honest person trying to make a living in a gang-populated neighborhood.

[meteast chick]

While I CERTAINLY am not pro NRA or pro gun, I AM pro The Consitutional Amendments and the Right to Bear Arms. I just wish it was the right to Bare Arms instead. We could have had so much more fun with that one!

Oh yeah, and to the person who wants to hang liberals out to dry and bash Obama because of his name can suck this Liberal's lily white ass.

Luv and Obama girl kisses,
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
meteast

[pasco_lol_cpl]

While I CERTAINLY am not pro NRA or pro gun, I AM pro The Consitutional Amendments and the Right to Bear Arms. I just wish it was the right to Bare Arms instead. We could have had so much more fun with that one!
:cutelaugh I think thats all many of us are asking for.

[darkeyes]

While I CERTAINLY am not pro NRA or pro gun, I AM pro The Consitutional Amendments and the Right to Bear Arms. I just wish it was the right to Bare Arms instead. We could have had so much more fun with that one!

Oh yeah, and to the person who wants to hang liberals out to dry and bash Obama because of his name can suck this Liberal's lily white ass.

Luv and Obama girl kisses,
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
meteastOnly bare arms Rache? tee hee:tong::bigrin:

[jedinudist]

The Heller decision is one of the greatest decisions handed down by the court in recent years!

Go to the NRA website and you can witness our own police forces and national guard illegally violate the 2nd amendment rights of hurricane victims!!!! They even beat an old lady to the ground for legally possessing a revolver to protect herself!!!

The Bill of Rights CAN NOT be suspended because of natural or political disaster! It is there so WE THE PEOPLE can ALWAYS exercise them when necessary.

The end result???

Good citizens were forcibly disarmed which created a huge pool of defenseless victims for the thugs to choose from. REAL statistics show that when more citizens legally carry firearms, CRIME RATES DROP DRAMATICALLY!! This has been proven REPEATEDLY and backed by the biggest law enforcement agencies in the US!

Look at London... take away their guns and crime shoots up. Now they're trying to take away knives!!!

Australia??? Banned guns and saw violent crime rise 300%. 300%!!!

Do you honestly think that a criminal who is considering rape, murder, home invasion, etc. is going to stop and say to him or herself "Wow, I really shouldn't carry this gun when I commit this crime - carrying this gun is illegal!"

When you try to take away the people's right to be able to defend themselves by the keeping and bearing of arms, then only law abiding citizens will be defenseless. Criminals will always have guns - they are cowards who wish to terrorize and threaten their victims into compliance. From personal experience, I can say they aren't brave at all when faced with an armed citizen willing to defend his life and the life of others.

If you don't want to carry a weapon - No Problem. I don't judge you at all. But stay away from my right to legally and safely carry mine. If you try to inflict your beliefs upon me that makes you a fascist.

[meteast chick]

Only bare arms Rache? tee hee:tong::bigrin:

No no, certainly not! I just thought that'd be a much nicer twist!

[darkeyes]

No no, certainly not! I just thought that'd be a much nicer twist!

Don need no arm twistin Rache.. tee hee. Bare or othawise:tong:;):bigrin:

[Papelucho]

REAL statistics show that when more citizens legally carry firearms, CRIME RATES DROP DRAMATICALLY!! This has been proven REPEATEDLY and backed by the biggest law enforcement agencies in the US!


Where can I find these statistics?

[wanderingrichard]

after the recent supreme court ruling against the city of wash. d.c., which finally overturned the illegal handgun ban foisted on the citizens there by an illegal act of our national congress, [ self preservation mechanism, i thnk..the line "first we get rid of all the lawyers" comes to mind] because they thought it was their ordained duty to regulate and legislate our capitol city, instead of allowing a city gov't to be formed.( yes this was way back in our nations early times) anyway, i don't think any city will soon have that authority any more as more suits like this occur..nor should they.. for instance nyc's sullivan act is an antiquated convulsion of knee jerk reactionism that has needed to be struck down for over 80 years...as i understand it, both boston and chicago also have such ridiculous bans. and i understand that the current resident idiot mayor of seattle is calling for much the same thing

here's an historical instance from china; in the beginning of the 1900's, shanghai was the most violent and lawless city on the planet. both personal and police firearms were banned, and gun crime, specifially murder, was rampant.

who owned guns? well, the crooks of course! and private squads of "personal secuirty men" which were allowed by law, only after massive payoffs to local "officials". pictures from that time show large touring cars driving down streets with as many as a dozen heavily armed men hanging from the running boards fenders and trunks.

W.E. Fairbain ( a famous international policeman) states in his biography that "the whine of .30 mauser in the streets was so commonplace that many paused and looked about them when the sound of flying bullets stopped"

how did the city eventually shed it's dangerous persona? by arming itself and it's citizens again. in many neighborhoods, groups of contables were organized and were issued revolvers that were carried only on an as needed basis.

Fairbain was one of the westerners who went there and helped teach and re- arm the police, and assisted in taking back the city street by street, pushing the criminals out. police were trained to carry their sidearm hammer down on an empty chamber and to incorporate pulling the slide back, cocking and chambering a round, into the drawing and aiming of their pistols. they became very very good at this, and it was a matter of professional and personal pride among officers to be able to not only carry a firearm, but to be able to openly and honestly state that they had never once accidently shot a citizen while serving the public. in fact, [quoting Fairbain agin] in over 1200 gunfights, 23 officers were killed or wounded in the line of duty, while not one civillian casualty occured.

we can't say that in the united states any more, can we?

i hope the man in san fran wins, i really do. police in this country, no matter what you've been lead to believe, are not at all obligated to protect YOU. that is your personal responsibility as a citizen guaranteed under the constitution. no, they are there to protect and serve the political and social entity that is the city, county or state, not the needs of the individual. and this has been proven repeatedly in courts of law, and ignored by said courts, just by simply reading the charters that set up police departments.

way i see it, you want better services etc from your municipality, start by becoming involved enough to know that you need more money to provide those services, and that political enitities and politicians in general will always find cheaper, easier ways, like legislating YOUR right to defend yourself away from you in the form of bans on weapons, personal movement [ think curfews]etc, instead of actually doing the right thing and using YOUR tax money to add more police, fire, rescue, public schools, and so on... after all, it's not like you actually have those rights to begin with and intend to use them, right?

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

My oldest daughter owns and operates a business in Washington D.C and has a Concealed Weapons Permit. She often brings home cash from her business and comes home alone. She obtained the weapon And the permit after being attacked shortly after she moved there. The guy came at her from behind, and being a cautious little thing (5 foot tall 135 lbs) she did what she could, and decked the lil sumbitch with the cashbox, kicked him in the balls then called 911 and told them a dude had just been clobbered by a girl...lol

The next day she and her husband bought a small weapon for her to carry when traveling alone. (Conventions, ect.)
She took the required courses (Like she Needed them being raised with my husband who was a former Nam Vet) and obtained her right-to-carry permit. Only once has she ever had to show the permit, and the policeman was very courtious and polite to her. She had it beneath her seat in an easy-off holster, and had her permit in her wallet.

I feel people have the right to have a weapon for their own private protection. I dont have my little Black Hawk handgun here in Washington state with me. It was in the gun safe in Calif when I left the Ex, but if I Did have it, it would be in my possession when I traveled, and my permit would be current. A person Should have the right to own, and carry a weapon for business, or for personal protection.
Just my 2 cents worth :}
Cat

[darkeyes]

The Heller decision is one of the greatest decisions handed down by the court in recent years!

Go to the NRA website and you can witness our own police forces and national guard illegally violate the 2nd amendment rights of hurricane victims!!!! They even beat an old lady to the ground for legally possessing a revolver to protect herself!!!

The Bill of Rights CAN NOT be suspended because of natural or political disaster! It is there so WE THE PEOPLE can ALWAYS exercise them when necessary.

The end result???

Good citizens were forcibly disarmed which created a huge pool of defenseless victims for the thugs to choose from. REAL statistics show that when more citizens legally carry firearms, CRIME RATES DROP DRAMATICALLY!! This has been proven REPEATEDLY and backed by the biggest law enforcement agencies in the US!

Look at London... take away their guns and crime shoots up. Now they're trying to take away knives!!!

Australia??? Banned guns and saw violent crime rise 300%. 300%!!!

Do you honestly think that a criminal who is considering rape, murder, home invasion, etc. is going to stop and say to him or herself "Wow, I really shouldn't carry this gun when I commit this crime - carrying this gun is illegal!"

When you try to take away the people's right to be able to defend themselves by the keeping and bearing of arms, then only law abiding citizens will be defenseless. Criminals will always have guns - they are cowards who wish to terrorize and threaten their victims into compliance. From personal experience, I can say they aren't brave at all when faced with an armed citizen willing to defend his life and the life of others.

If you don't want to carry a weapon - No Problem. I don't judge you at all. But stay away from my right to legally and safely carry mine. If you try to inflict your beliefs upon me that makes you a fascist.Mayb sum kindsa violent crime in the UK have gotten worse in las few years.. seems 2 hav been so for a long time now.. prob so also in Australia but leave them 2 argue that point ...certainly cant argue bout knife crime... ne kinda crime of violence is nasty no matta wot kind. But guns wud lessen it? Don bloody think so. Far as me knos deaths by firearms hav begun 2 drop, an violent crime as a whole has begun 2 drop in the UK. Lots don perceive it, cos its now so ingrained in our psyche cosa wot we c on telly an read in the newspapers. But for all that...it seems 2 b so wiv far less murders per head a population in the UK than in the US... an we not talkin ere bout a few per centage points... we talkin bout summat like a quarter a US murder rate per head a population.. ok..mayb its only 30%.. won argue.. but the point is ther... sure sum kindsa violent crime r worse ere than the US... knife crime for 1.. but the point is ther for all 2 c... a nation wich has sum kinda control ova guns is in reality safer than 1 wich enshrines in its constitution a rite 2 carry firearms. Certainly ya survival chances r a lil bit betta wen it cums 2 crime. So don gimme ya holier than thou don take me toys away bollox.. ya has guns cosya likes havin guns.. don bend the truth 2 makeya point cos it don wash wiv me..an it certainly don wash wiv peeps here an hav no doubt it won wash wiv Australians eitha... ya attachment 2 guns goes bak wenya reely neded em for nation buildin an the like.. ya don hav the same need..

An lemme say this Jedi... yea.. me wud inflict me opinions onya ok.. am doin now ... me wud if me cud hav every weapon factory shut down, every gun melted down, an if me cud...me wud magic away mankinds knowledge a guns. Certainly if Fran had the power, she wud make it illegal for ne citizen 2 carry a gun or own 1. An lil liberally minded gal that me is...wud make sure the legal redress for producin, havin, ownin, firin or usin firearms on otha peeps wud b less than nice. That makes me a fascist??? Don think so...Governments pass laws every day wich lotsa peeps don like.. dus that make them fascist?? Don b such a daft sod.. it makes us different..wiv diff ideas on how the world shud b.. but it don make me ne more fascist than u r.. unless of course ya r 1.. but that aint the case.. is it?

[TaylorMade]

If the entire world forswears violence but for one man, he will enslave the world if he wants to.

- - D.Hall, USAF

*Taylor*

[TaylorMade]

My oldest daughter owns and operates a business in Washington D.C and has a Concealed Weapons Permit. She often brings home cash from her business and comes home alone. She obtained the weapon And the permit after being attacked shortly after she moved there. The guy came at her from behind, and being a cautious little thing (5 foot tall 135 lbs) she did what she could, and decked the lil sumbitch with the cashbox, kicked him in the balls then called 911 and told them a dude had just been clobbered by a girl...lol

The next day she and her husband bought a small weapon for her to carry when traveling alone. (Conventions, ect.)
She took the required courses (Like she Needed them being raised with my husband who was a former Nam Vet) and obtained her right-to-carry permit. Only once has she ever had to show the permit, and the policeman was very courtious and polite to her. She had it beneath her seat in an easy-off holster, and had her permit in her wallet.

I feel people have the right to have a weapon for their own private protection. I dont have my little Black Hawk handgun here in Washington state with me. It was in the gun safe in Calif when I left the Ex, but if I Did have it, it would be in my possession when I traveled, and my permit would be current. A person Should have the right to own, and carry a weapon for business, or for personal protection.
Just my 2 cents worth :}
Cat

Amen, dammit. :)

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

If the entire world forswears violence but for one man, he will enslave the world if he wants to.

- - D.Hall, USAF

*Taylor*
The things peeps will say 2 keep ther toys.. e wos talkin bollox an all!

[shameless agitator]

OK, I didn't read all the posts, but since this is what I do for a living & I actually know the lead attorney I'll put in my 2 cents. The fact that D.C.'s ban was stricken had nothing to do with it not being a state. The supremes simply held that banning all handguns and requiring all long arms to be nonoperational was an unreasonable restriction of rights guaranteed under the 2nd amendment. The most significant thing about this ruling was that they defined the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. This of course means people can no longer make the argument that it's a state's right for the purpose of maintaining a militia. I'm predicting victory in San Fransisco & Chicago (we filed challenges to both bans the same day the Heller ruling was issued), which will give us more ammunition to challenge several other bans all over the country. This does not, of course, mean we will have completely unfettered gun rights no matter how many cases we bring. The Supremes also said that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to "reasonable regulation" just as all constitutional rights are. The fight now is going to be over defining what is and is not reasonable.

[jamieknyc]

All of this is just dancing around with baloney, since everyone knows that in the urban and suburban areas where the huge majority of the population lives, the purpose of gun ownership is not to resist the tyranny of the government, but to commit crimes.

[TaylorMade]

All of this is just dancing around with baloney, since everyone knows that in the urban and suburban areas where the huge majority of the population lives, the purpose of gun ownership is not to resist the tyranny of the government, but to commit crimes.

Or protect oneself from crime.

*Taylor*

[FalconAngel]

All of this is just dancing around with baloney, since everyone knows that in the urban and suburban areas where the huge majority of the population lives, the purpose of gun ownership is not to resist the tyranny of the government, but to commit crimes.

Am I the only one that has noticed that the cities which have the most restrictive gun control laws, have had the highest violent crime rate increases since the gun control laws were established in those cities?

When criminals have the advantage, then what is to stop them? When citizens have the advantage, then the criminals are less likely to risk life and limb for small reward.

The bad guys, like terrorists, prefer soft targets.

Less than 2% of all crimes are committed with a legally obtained handgun. So get the actual hard numbers for any city in the US and subtract 2%. The number remaining is the number of crimes committed with illegally obtained, or black market, weapons.
So the whole fallacy of people owning guns just to commit crimes is nothing more than propaganda.
But don't take my word for it. It's all on the FBI website, for anyone to read.

Also, as far as gun ownership for resisting tyranny of government, it is the deterrent factor more than anything else. People should not fear the government, the government should fear the people and operate in such a way as to not piss off those people that they are sworn to serve.

[darkeyes]

Or protect oneself from crime.

*Taylor*
Stop the 1st lot from havin guns..wy need the 2cd? Soz.. mayb 2 simple minded me.. but seems 2 make sense...

[Searchingfortwo]

While I CERTAINLY am not pro NRA or pro gun, I AM pro The Consitutional Amendments and the Right to Bear Arms. I just wish it was the right to Bare Arms instead. We could have had so much more fun with that one!

Oh yeah, and to the person who wants to hang liberals out to dry and bash Obama because of his name can suck this Liberal's lily white ass.

Luv and Obama girl kisses,
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
meteast

Amen to that! :)

Whoever mentioned that the Bill of Rights will never be suspended...Get back to me after a big enough national crisis and we will compare notes. Remember that Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus* and unjustly imprisoned upwards of 17,000 people during the civil war. At some point, if there were a big enough emergency, I guarantee that the Bill of Rights would be suspended, if not gutted permanently.

*Not a part of the Bill of Rights but Article 1 section 9 of the Constitution.

[allbimyself]

Stop the 1st lot from havin guns..wy need the 2cd? Soz.. mayb 2 simple minded me.. but seems 2 make sense...

It's not sense, it's wishful thinking. The genie is out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Anyone of average intelligence with modest talent and a few tools can manufacture a firearm. You can't uninvent them (I'm amused that Firefox underlines "uninvent" to indicate it isn't even a word).

Guns will ALWAYS be available to anyone that doesn't have a qualm about them being illegal, even if you magically make all the ones that currently exist disappear.

[TaylorMade]

Stop the 1st lot from havin guns..wy need the 2cd? Soz.. mayb 2 simple minded me.. but seems 2 make sense...

BWAH-HA-HA... you always make me laugh.

And you don't even have to type in character either.

*Taylor*

[pasco_lol_cpl]

Far as me knos deaths by firearms hav begun 2 drop, an violent crime as a whole has begun 2 drop in the UK.
Actually since the gun bans in the UK and Oz were enacted the crime rate have risen and firearms related crimes and deaths have risen. So despite discounting the statistics on TV, the numbers match. Its not hyperbole. Yes the per capita rate is lower in the UK, but not by much. So yes we are talking about nearly minuscule numbers. In fact the percapita rate in the US is minuscule. Folks are much more likely to die from drunk driving or drowning than from a firearm in the US. You are right though, the violent crime rate in the UK is higher in some areas. So like the lad this week in London, you are more likely to be stabbed to death in London than you are to be shot in the US.

Oh and we have guns because its a right enshrined into our constitution. That we like the or dont like them is besides the point. We do have the same need today for them that we did back then (to keep the government in check). Before you or anyone else goes on about how ineffective an armed populace would be against a modern day army, why dont you ask the folks like the US (Vietnam) or Russia (Afghanistan) or the Sandinista's (Nicaragua) how well they held up against an armed, irregular, insurgency. Hell the US got bloody luck in Iraq in that they pulled their heads out of their asses.

As for inflicting ones opinion on anyone else in order to stip them of their rights, all I have to say is that I detest the hypocrisy of the "Freedom for me, but not for thee" crowd. Those folks are no better than the ones that would twist our constitution to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals and are equally deserving of my scorn.

As for magically making weapons disappear, well thats what it would take. You know why? Its because I and just about anyone else with half a brain can take any sort of common household items and turn them into weapons. So I hope that magic wand can no only make all the weapons disappear, but it can also transform human nature in an instance.


All of this is just dancing around with baloney, since everyone knows that in the urban and suburban areas where the huge majority of the population lives, the purpose of gun ownership is not to resist the tyranny of the government, but to commit crimes.
You got stats to back that one up. According to the Gallup org over 1/3 of all American homes ADMIT to owning firearms. When you look at the numbers sold, it translates to a lot more homes than that owning firearms.


Am I the only one that has noticed that the cities which have the most restrictive gun control laws, have had the highest violent crime rate increases since the gun control laws were established in those cities?
Nope.


When criminals have the advantage, then what is to stop them? When citizens have the advantage, then the criminals are less likely to risk life and limb for small reward.

The bad guys, like terrorists, prefer soft targets.
Yep. Despite the wishes of others, the statistics back up gun ownership. Not the other way around. Face it, some folks will rely on their propaganda and ignore facts simply cause it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[droog0042]

We're glad that we can own guns for our personal protection.

To the people who think that any/all gun ownership is bad, have you ever actually lived in an area that's so crime ridden that you need to protect yourself from others?

[eddy10]

I do not remember the source of this quote. I think it was one of our founding fathers that said:

"An armed society is a polite society."

[TaylorMade]

I do not remember the source of this quote. I think it was one of our founding fathers that said:

"An armed society is a polite society."

Not a founding father. . .but close... one of the Founding Fathers of Science Fiction, the Dean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein) of it, in fact said the quote you're citing (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertahe100989.html) . :)

He advocated free love (he was pro-polyamory) and overthrowing political oppression. Not a bad dude in some respects.

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

BWAH-HA-HA... you always make me laugh.

And you don't even have to type in character either.

*Taylor*
Will reply 2 othas wen me has a lil time.. but ya don make me laff Taylor... not often ne ways... cry in despair forya own lakka faith more like.. but its ok.. yas not alone in that..:(

[darkeyes]

Sed me wud cum bak 2 this..not gonna say 2 much... jus point out that in the US in 2004/5 there wer 16692 homicides (includin non negligent manslaughter) an in the UK (includin Northern Ireland in the same period, there wer 930 homicides of all kinds (includin all kindsa manslaughter). Considrin the US had a population of close 2 300 million an the UK of bout 60 million at the time am sure ya can do the maths. Am not claimin that the UK is a paradise of luff an gud will in ne way.. in sum ways an certainly in sum partsa the country its ne thin but..wot me is sayin... wenya considers that the percentage a homicide compared 2 the overall numbers a violent crimes wich r committed in the UK is much lower than in the US, an the numbers a homicides of all kinds r much lower per heada population as a whole.. we havta ask ourselves wy??? Cud it b summat 2 do wiv the easy availability a firearms an many 'mericans determination 2 stand on their constitutional rite "to bear arms"? Figures by the way aint from wiki or ne such daft scources but from the respective law enforcement agencies of the US, England anWales, Scotland an Northern Ireland. Question there accuracy if ya want.. me questions all such stuff..but for all that..they don haff tell a tale...

Hardly baks up Pasco an is claim that the difference is negligible.. me stop wer me is ta!!! Bit bloody safa innit??

[darkeyes]

It's not sense, it's wishful thinking. The genie is out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Anyone of average intelligence with modest talent and a few tools can manufacture a firearm. You can't uninvent them (I'm amused that Firefox underlines "uninvent" to indicate it isn't even a word).

Guns will ALWAYS be available to anyone that doesn't have a qualm about them being illegal, even if you magically make all the ones that currently exist disappear.
No ya cant Allbi..me not that stupid 2 think we can..but contrary 2 wot 'merican's believe, me jus happens 2 think ifya allow free an easy access 2 guns for the population at large.. as Taylor an othas sez "for self defence".. me jus thinks ya makes it more likely that the bad guys will make sure they aint gonna b at a disadvantage.. its self defeatin an downrite dangerous.. far as me can c.. wereva firearms aint so easy 2 get an wer they r more rigidly controlled.. those countries wile not free of gun crime..r much less rampant wiv it.. an consequently victims of crime..violent or othawise r less likely 2 lose their lives..

Lot has been mada the Brit propensity 2 use knives ratha than guns.. jeez..wud ratha face a guy wiv a knife ne day.. he or she hasta get a lot bloody closer for a start fore doin ya!! An yea..we hav laws on knives an otha offensive weapons an all....