You totally reverse yourself here, rendering your entire post moot. America is not us and them. America is We The People, an all inclusive term. You make it clear you support your gun rights, just nobody else's.
Your support is interesting but it would be more interesting to know how you developed it. It has little to do with the 2nd amendment. The right to bear arm is not restricted to arms you own. The right to bear arms is meaningless if you need government approval for every different weapon, each time you pick it up. The people have the right to arm themselves.
That has nothing to do with the recently enacted Oregon law that you are so upset with. You do not need government approval each time you pick up a gun. Yes, people have the right to arm themselves, legally. You have the right to arm yourself. We've gone over this and over this. You do not have the right to arm anyone else outside of your family. If someone wants a gun they need to legally go get one themselves. For you to claim that you have some right to walk around your neighborhood and decided who should and shouldn't have guns is wrong. I keep telling you, you are free to help and train people to own and operate guns.
Oh snap! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/01/police-concealed-carry-license-holder-kills-armed-gunman/
Precisely! I am sure now you do see how it drastically restricts the freedom we have under the 2nd amendment. Activity that Americans have done including myself for years is made illegal by democrats. The fellow that shot the lion (with my shotgun) stocking the ladies walking our neighborhood would not have had the weapon unless we agreed to ignore the law. Forcing us to schedule a back ground check and drive to Coos Bay and back serves no real purpose except to record the serial number of the weapon. The next time I loaned that weapon for another good deed would repeat the bull shit for no reason at all except gather another thumb print. I certainly think a smart man like your self can see this an incremental infrigement, just one more step without any meaningful ability to prevent violent acts.
Wow! I haven't seen the name Gildersleeve since the days of the Great Gildersleeve, a radio program maybe 60 years ago.
No you don't, not at all. The Second Amendment guarantees it, but you want "the guvmint" to interrogate and investigate only the citizens who want to buy guns (you already have yours and I have mine), and then based on some "guvmint formula" deciding who should have Second Amendment rights and should not have Second Amendment rights prevent many Real Americans from buying guns either by imprisoning them or murdering them.
Hahahahaha! Interrogate?!? A background check is not an interrogation. Just so everyone knows your extreme views I will ask you a question that you have answered before, Should felons be allowed to own a gun?
If we're going to debate this, give me your definition of a felon, just so I know if we're talking about hired murderers, tax cheats or some guy who sold a joint to a narc 20 years ago. I'm assuming they served their sentence and were released?
Not me. I want the guvmint to interrogate and investigate all gun owners (including me) and potential gun owners alike. barfo
Because a white guy....especially an older white guy...comes from a different era and experience. He has...or should have no problem wandering into the police station of a nice, relatively peaceful....and almost exclusively white little town and chat up the local cops......AND talk about gun ownership and swapping handguns with his buddies....or anyone else he chooses. Do you really think a younger black man in this day and age, in a big city with a small minority population and gang problems can do the same?? Somehow I don't think the police would be quite so warm and fuzzy.
