Military weapons begin to appear in street crimes.

I have always believed that people are far less likely to pull a gun and start shooting if they have reason to believe others around them might promptly do the same and put an end to the stupidity.
A gun on the hip reinforces good manners.

I've never seen evidence that this really works unless the people around the criminal are openly carrying the firearms.
I would like to see laws that will reduce the number of people killed by drunk drivers.

We do have a number of laws that address drunk driving, and as a result of those laws the number of injuries and deaths from drunk drivers has significantly declined.

Once we get drunk drivers under control.... then maybe I would see the light by taking peoples firearm rights away.

There are things we can do short of taking away firearms. We license everyone who drivers a car for example, but yet don't require that of everyone using a firearm. Indeed, simply raise the issue of licensing and many gun owners go nuts, despite not having any issue with getting a driver's license. I don't understand the opposition to gun laws that would not take away your rights to own and use firearm for legitimate defense.

One of the reasons the United States hasn't been attacked by others is simple. We have the world's largest armed population just in hunters from Wisconsin.

I'm sorry, but every time I hear that argument, it makes me laugh. If you think that our armed citizenry could defeat a professional military then perhaps you didn't pay that much attention to the capabilities of the military while you were in it. A hunter's rifle won't do a damn bit of good against a Tupolev 160 Russian bomber or a Type 99 Chinese tank. Or the nukes of either country. Nor would an unorganized group of hunters have much hope of fending off a well trained, organized, and equipped military unit of similar size.

No, the reasons we have not been attacked is because (1) the U.S. has the worlds most sophisticated, well equipped, and trained military by virtue of massively outspending our competition and (2) our geography puts two large oceans between us and any real threat — we share no borders with any hostile nation.
I've never seen evidence that this really works unless the people around the criminal are openly carrying the firearms.

Many Texas citizens carry long guns openly.
I've seen a some people openly carrying a pistol or revolver.
One gentlemen told me that he's never been accosted when openly displays what he's packing.

Our new law (effective 01 SEP) allows eligible citizens to carry openly or concealed without a state issued permit.

ALL I know is many of our ancestors carried openly and obeyed existing laws.
A gun on the hip reinforces good manners.

No, it doesn't. It potentially makes for deadly misunderstandings if not outright confrontations. And somebody can sneak up behind you and grab it. I've never been a fan of open carry. I want my handgun to be a big surprise to anybody trying to do me harm.

Besides, you're paraphrasing Robert Heinlein's quote "An armed society is a polite society." A quote that has been misinterpreted because it's always quoted out of context. The actual context condones senseless violence.

"Well, in the first place an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization. That's a personal evaluation only. But gun-fighting has a strong biological use. We do not have enough things that kill off the weak and the stupid these days. But to stay alive as an armed citizen a man has to be either quick with his wits or with his hands, preferably both. It's a good thing."

From the novel Beyond This Horizon where men carry guns and fight duels and die over petty matters.

I'll start there with a few of the things that I would find acceptable in an effort to reduce gun violence. At the risk of offending my fellow 2A supporters, here goes.

Make open carry illegal. That way anybody seen with a gun gets arrested and the gun confiscated permanently, if or when convicted. Especially those morons that walk around with AR-15s waiting for the cops to show up to be recorded. That ought to seriously reduce the massacres by having a few extra minutes to apprehend somebody carrying an "assault rifle" before they get a chance to enter the school, the church, the store, the office, the movie theater, etc. You want to own one. Fine. Carry it in a case when you go to the range or go hunting. Otherwise leave it home. I don't wear my "assault rifle" around my neck.

Constitutional carry. Not a fan of that either. Hasn't really been a problem since AZ passed it but I'm sure that there are people out there carrying concealed without any training. Repeal it. If you want to carry concealed, get a permit to carry concealed and get the required training.

Concealed carry permits. Make them shall issue if qualified, like AZ. Go back to requiring rigorous training. AZ originally required 16 hours of range and classroom for new permits (where the class itself had to qualify) and a refresher class on renewals. Now, to get a new permit one only has to submit a certificate or document of some training somewhere and no refresher class on renewal. Strengthen the training requirements. Yes, a permit is no longer needed in AZ but many of us keep getting and renewing because of reciprocity with other states. Helps when travelling with a firearm.

The gun show loophole. HR8 that passed the House in March seems to answer that question by making it illegal for anyone, anywhere, any time, to transfer any firearm to anybody else without first handing over to a licensed dealer who will then run the background check before handing it over to the new owner. Some exceptions. It's pending in the Senate.

Text - H.R.8 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021 | | Library of Congress

I could live with that. If I'm selling a gun I'm making sure the buyer has a permit anyway, and I've got several FFL stores nearby that I can meet a buyer at and split the fee.

I understand that the penalty is up to a year in jail and up to a $100,000 fine.

I suppose that some enterprising dealers or gun show promoters will provide the background checks either free or for a few bucks to insure the survival of gun shows. The law, if passed, should hopefully deter people, who know they won't pass, from attempting to buy a gun at a gun show.

Seems "reasonable" doesn't it?

Until you come to

Background checks. HR1446 also passed the House and is pending in the Senate. HR1446 is the "Enhanced Background Checks Act" which extends the waiting period up to 30 days plus another 25 days. I admit that I don't understand what it actually says just what it seems to say., that the government can delay clearance for almost two months.

Text - H.R.1446 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021 | | Library of Congress

You talk about a slippery slope. First we have something that appears "reasonable" and then we have the whammy.

What's next?

You know, I have no objection to "reasonable" regulation. I'm already regulated and I'm OK with it. But I don't believe that the Democrats want "reasonable" regulation.

Feinstein in 1995:

Feinstein in 1995: 'Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn Them All In' - YouTube

Listen to Hilary. We can't have people shooting other people who are trying to kill us:

Hillary Clinton on Gun Control "Rein in the Gun Culture" - YouTube

Hillary again. Needs better tracking and record keeping. That's a euphemism for registration.

Hillary Clinton unveils plan to tighten US gun laws - YouTube

I'll get off my high horse now.
Last edited:
A driving license is not required to purchase a car.

A driving license is not required to operate a car on private property.

A sixteen year old can get a driving license.

A driving license is shall-issue.

If you lose your driving privileges you can regain them eventually by paying fines, taking classes, keeping a clean record for a certain amount of time, etc.

A violent felon can get a driving license.

So... yeah, let's make licensing for guns exactly like licensing for cars...

While my state also has Constitutional Carry, most people get permits so they can concealed carry in neighboring states and so they can bypass NICS when purchasing a firearm from an FFL.

Sadly I know a few FFL's who want to see transfers between non-licensees outlawed because they're looking at a cash cow for their businesses.
So... yeah, let's make licensing for guns exactly like licensing for cars...

Guns and cars are obviously two very different devices and thus need to be regulated differently. But when ardent second amendment advocates trot out the tired argument that they'll only support efforts to regulate guns when driving deaths are dealt with first as a way to misdirect the discussion, I then point out we have been doing just that for cars with laws that include things like licensing drivers and registering cars so if the second amendment crowd wants to equate cars and guns, they should not be opposed to such rules for guns either. And when I point that out, suddenly — big surprise — they don't want to equate guns and cars any more because, by God, gun owners shouldn't have to be licensed and guns shouldn't have to registered. Some arguments advanced by most strident second amendment folks are not logical and don't stand up in the face of known facts, and when such arguments are made I have no problem pointing out the flaws and attacking the lack of logic.
How about if we prosecute and incarcerate criminals up to the max time possible when they do violate a firearm law? Let's look at an example from just this week:

Washington, D.C. Man Sentenced to Nearly Five Years in Federal Prison for Stealing Firearms from a Gun Store

The perp could have gotten ten years, instead he gets less than half that. He was wearing an ankle monitor when he committed the theft so we're not looking at a first-time offender either. The perp is obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer and he'll be in his mid-20's when he gets out, so I doubt he's going to trade in his burglary tools for a regular paycheck.
How about if we prosecute and incarcerate criminals up to the max time possible when they do violate a firearm law?

While I am in favor of enforcing existing law, it is very apparent that the threat of jail/prison is not sufficient to deter a lot of shooters. I think trying to prevent shootings in the first place is a better goal than locking them after the shooting occurs. Locking up the offender after the fact does not do a damn thing to undo the harm the shooter caused.
That is just it, gun control does not deter shootings, in fact it would make them more severe and more commonplace. You can not stop a persons free will. One of our freedoms is the right of the individual, anyway it is not guns that are the issue. It is the ability to get and stock pile ammunition for said guns. I had an anti gun type ask me why I was purchasing or felt the need to purchase ammunition at the local gun shop. I told her to protect myself from people like her.

In the USA, we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I could care less what kind of ideology someone imposes on themselves. Freedom is not free, and like Ben Franklin said it is a Republic for as long as we can hold on to it. So, the founders of this country knew things would evolve and devolve into another form and that is why they gave everyone in this country "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon". To defend themselves, property, life and possessions from tyrannical over reach by a corrupt out of control government which will create a Marxist Socialist Society cloaked as a Liberal Democracy in order to maintain power.