DaVinci

Fail, you do not have to drive..... Would you support a law requiring everyone over 21 to own a handgun (Other than those not allowed to own a gun by current law)? Yes, or No?

Sure they do... when they are off duty. The ability to bring a weapon into play is ALWAYS a good example. You may not LIKE it, but that does not negate it. Source? Data to back up that claim? Do you think more openly carrying cops, or apparently unarmed people get mugged? And you can draw on the BG faster than from cover. Yes, do you train fighting hand to hand while trying to get your gun out from cover? Guess what... BASE is illegal, carrying a gun openly (where allowed) is not. So there is no "burning" of objects when it is legal. Bridge day is not at night. Hell, I have lots of videos of daytime base jumps where they are legal. Or, it is hot and you don't want to wear a cover. Or, you realize that a visual deterrent works (cops do not get mugged). Or you realize that it is faster bring a weapon from open than from cover. You trying to characterize anyone that does not agree with YOUR views only as a wannabe "John Wayne" is EXACTLY like the antis claiming anyone that wants to carry a gun at all is a wannabe "Dirty Harry"... Illogical and purely based on emotion.

They should all be forced to watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0 Especially at the 5:50 mark on.

The point is he had over 140K stolen from his business in 2009. Yet he is claiming he could not provide coverage. 140K would have provided coverage to his handful of employees. The point is that he is claiming he could not provide something, yet he had 140K missing and didn't notice till the accountant caught it almost a year later. So, misplacing 140k and claiming to not be able to provide coverage does not make sense when you are running an 8m dollar company. He CHOOSES not to do it.... fine. But then he should not complain that he could not.

For those that think the individual mandate is legal and should be allowed.... How do you feel about this mandate: http://ktar.com/category/local-news-articles/20110201/Proposed-law-says-adults-must-own-a-gun/ Would this also be legal in your opinion? I already know the people proposing the law do not think it should be.... But what do YOU who support the insurance mandate feel?

Cho's case it was since it was ordered by a JUDGE. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html "After an investigation, a Virginia special justice declared Cho mentally ill and ordered him to attend treatment." And if you have read the report about the incident it freely admits there were failures in the reporting and the NRA and the VPC joined together to close those loopholes.

BTW, still waiting for you to answer these: 1. This was not in a bar.... and there have been no cases of a gun fight in a bar caused by this... So your argument has no data and is just hot air. 2. So is the right to self defense.... Ask Blackstone and the SC Failure to provide an answer will be taken as your inability to provide one.

No, I am saying they could have reported him to people who could have made that call. This is why I said "There was hard data that Cho had an issue... Less with Loughner. But there was some data available." I would think a Judge after discussing the issue with a Dr. that is qualified to make that kind of call. My point is that we had such data on Cho and it was not reported. And that Loughner had indications that could (maybe should) have led to further investigations.

So? In every State there is a requirement to go through a background check to buy a gun from a dealer... no State has the requirement for a car. That is why I said MOST. But like normal you are unable to debate on the ISSUE and instead throw a strawman.

Pure opinion. If that were true, then why don't all cops carry hidden? It is MUCH faster to draw from an open position than from cover... So there is one point right there. Or tell the criminal to stay away. Not many cops get mugged. Criminals prey on the weak, not the armed... there is another point. Big deal. Skydiving scares people... Should we stop? People think base is dangerous... Should we ban it?

Actually, I think it was designed to be such a hassle that many gun dealers would not bother. It is regulation by red tape and fees. For example... Kel Tec's cannot be sold new in CA.

Never said Glocks were perfect, please find ONE comment where I did. But you yourself stated that you knew of an 1911 that needed some run time. Why is it wrong to point out that I have seen others. I have seen several custom 1911's run like crap till around 100 rounds have been through them. For example my buddy had a Les Baer that was this way. So since you will be unable to find a "Glock perfection" comment from me... Maybe you could turn down your 1911 pride a bit?

As you like to say, "Do a search"

Mexico has a problem. And they already have regulations like you want in the US. Show me it working in Mexico before we follow an already failed path here and trample all over the rights of citizens.

This from the guy that bitched about his toy model rockets being regulated and "No fly zones" being implemented. How can you rationalize being pissed when your toys are affected, but WANT to regulate a right given to a citizen?

And there is the classic liberal creep on people's gun rights. How would you feel about the same test applied to the right to vote? The right to free speech?

There are already systems in place. If a Dr. thinks you are a danger, he can report you. Cho for example had been diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder for years and by law was not allowed to buy a gun. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html

I know some of it... Let me take a good stab at it. To sell a handgun in CA you have to provide 3 test guns to an independent agency and pay for the testing. You must also pay a fee to the State. Only the maker or importer is allowed to do this, an individual or group may not. Each year the manufacturer/importer must pay a 200.00 dollar fee to keep the model on the list. So lets say you had a 5" and a 6" barrel... BOTH would have to have three sent in for testing and pay 200/each per year to keep them on the list. For example, the S&W 5" 952 is on the list, but the 6" longslide is not. Once it is on "the list" it can be sold in CA. Also, NEW restrictions do not apply to a gun on the list. In 2007 it was decided to require all semi-automatic handguns submitted for testing to get on the Roster must have both a magazine disconnect and a loaded-chamber indicator... but Glocks were already on the roster and therefore did not have to comply with the new rules AS LONG as they pay the 200/year for each model. This list does not apply to FTF transfers (even though they have to go through an FFL). Only guns sold from dealers. The lab fires 600 rounds from each gun, stopping after each series of 50 rounds has been fired for 5 to 10 minutes to allow the weapon to cool, stopping after each series of 100 rounds has been fired to tighten any loose screws and clean the gun in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, and stopping as needed to refill the empty magazine or cylinder to capacity before continuing. Passing means each of the three guns: (1) Fires the first 20 rounds without a malfunction. (So, if you have a 1911 that has to be worked in.... You are SOL) (2) Fires the full 600 rounds with no more than six malfunctions The drop test requires that each of the three sample guns is loaded with a primer only shell and is dropped 1m onto a slab of solid concrete having minimum dimensions of 3 X 6 X 6 in. And it has to be in a condition ready to fire... No safety on. It is dropped: (a) Normal firing position with barrel horizontal. (b) Upside down with barrel horizontal. (c) On grip with barrel vertical. (d) On muzzle with barrel vertical. (e) On either side with barrel horizontal. (f) If there is an exposed hammer or striker, on the rearmost point of that device, otherwise on the rearmost point of the weapon. All three samples must go through the entire battery of tests with no failures. So if one of the three has more than 6 misfires in 600 rounds or one of the three hits the primer hard enough to "fire", the gun fails. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_15_bill_19990830_chaptered.html

Cho had been sent to an eval... But that info was not allowed to be reported to the State. Loughner was told he could not come back to school without a letter from a shrink since he was deemed a "danger to himself and others" So both had documented mental issues. The VA law was changed after Cho (with the support of the NRA BTW). There was hard data that Cho had an issue... Less with Loughner. But there was some data available.

Got it... you can't answer with intelligent discourse, so you insult. I thought calling someone a racist was a PA??? Mods? And I am FOR everyone that is legal to own a weapon... Unlike you. The racists in the South disarmed blacks. You seem to share more with the "good ol boys" than I do. I want blacks to be allowed to be armed. It is hard to be lynched when you can fight back.

How about you stick to the topic at hand? Why are you defending this now that Obama is doing it?

Got it... I asked you a question. Instead of replying you throw insults. Basically you know you have nothing of merit to say and no leg to stand on, so you act like this. I thought personal attacks were not allowed? Now care to act like an adult and actually answer the question asked?

*7* Justices said there were Equal Protection Clause violations due to the different methods used by each County. So unless you want to claim that Breyer and Souter were "conservatives".... That dog will not hunt.

Got that did you

True... I read a piece by a guy that I thought was great and this is what made me start really thinking about this issue. Here that article is http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment And it is just a damn good piece. So I don't get it.... Most liberals (yes, not all) think all but the 2nd should be allowed to the people. That may be the very best Pro 2nd article I have ever read. But you must agree that MOST cases, liberals only agree to liberal interpretations of the every right but the 2nd.