To paraphrase classicman's post, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a "Gun-Free" advocate who would support going house to house confiscating guns.

As a matter of fact I've run into a couple, unfortunately I wasn't driving.
But that's what would have to happen to happen to have a "gun free" America, and I don't think the zealots who rant and rave on the net or in the papers have thought about. Possibly some of the lesser rabid have, but I'm pretty certain most of the people who hear them and nod, saying that sounds like a good solution, haven't either. As long as the vocal core of that pole preach unattainable goals, the other pole will preach outrageous bullshit also, assuring nothing gets done.

The extremists have always been the problem, so it's incumbent on the moderates to speak up.

Imperative, even. :thumb:

The Last Leg's take on gun control in America:

Never forget what the NRA is. It is a lobbyist organization for the gun industry. Its only purpose is it promote sales. It is wildly successful having achieved what most lobbyists do not do. It got the customers to pay for its expenses. Normally the industry gets pays those costs. NRA's purpose - to promote gun sales. That fundamental purposes has not changed.

I should probably point out that Hill's 'rant' is a regular part of the show and always ends with the exhortation to 'stop being a dick'. He isn't just randomly having a pop at America.

Not quite.... from one version of the NRA history

Of course, the raison d'etre of the 2nd Amendment has
now been Scaliatized to expunge "A well regulated militia ...".

.

The NRA did a good job of promoting safety training for youth, through supervised target shooting, to get them used to handling a gun safely, and safe hunting practices. They handled the transfer of surplus weapons from the government to the boy scouts, and promoted sport shooting as a hobby.

When the urban/suburban population outgrew the rural, there also grew a segment that had no history of hunting or handling guns, who only saw them as weapons of war or criminal activity, and were generally scared of the gun's existence. From this segment came a vocal movement, mothers-against-anything-fun, along with the Friends-of-Ned-Flanders-against-murdering-cute-bunnies-&-Bambi, promoting any and all restrictions they could. More importantly they rallied the people who were ignorant of guns, other than the TV/movies depictions.

The NRA said, whoa, WTF, you're fucking with our recreation, lifestyle, and protection. That's an understandable reaction. Where they went wrong was retreating to a hilltop and building a fort, instead of infiltrating and educating their opposition. The fer me or agin me stand, seldom ends well. This case is no exception. They've created a polarization where you love guns or you're a commie, socialist, hippie, left wing, and probably a demoncrat. While the other pole thinks if you own a gun, it must be on an alter to Satan in a secret room where you eat cooked babies. I'm pretty sure most people, gun owner or not, don't fit either description.

"A well regulated militia...", when it was written, was civilians with their own guns and the skills to use them effectively, if the country needed to gather them quickly into a preplanned fighting force. It helped to have people who wouldn't shoot their eye out, or yours, when you're drafting solders to build up our military, which is the same as calling in the militia.

Whether that plan is appropriate for this day and age of professional solders, can be debated with reasonable points on both sides. But the fact remains, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is in there. So I don't see a way to outlaw them without changing the 2nd amendment. That said, the Supremes have made a couple of really bad rulings in the past,(I'm looking at you Kelo vs The City of New London:mad2:), and may again.

The Supreme Court already ruled on this with the DC ban on guns and basically removed the militia bit of the amendment. The words are still there, but the court said they no longer apply.
Check out the wikipedia entry on the case.

Thanks.
I just occurred to me, if being part of the "militia" was a prerequisite, that would exclude women. We know that's a no-no. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif

That same ruling says that states can regulate guns, but can't ban them. So they can require waiting period or background checks, for example, but no outright bans.

Reasonable restrictions. I remember when PA passed hidden carry permits I went to the first issuing session and the room was crowded with probably three dozen chairs, all taken. They announced the first step would be fingerprinting, and half got up and walked out. It's their game, their rules, if you don't like it don't play. I felt the CC permit was worth it, but obviously many don't.

To clarify; the advantage of having a concealed carry permit is if I want to take a handgun to a friend's house, in order to take it in the car(legally), it must be unloaded, in the trunk, in a locked container, with the bullets in a separate container. Plus you still need a reason for having it in the car. There's a dozen acceptable reasons, but 'just because' isn't one of them.

With a CC permit, unload it and throw it in the glove compartment, or on the floor. Personally I don't use the CC permit to carry a gun all the time, it's just a convenience when I want to take one somewhere and happen to get stopped. Otherwise I'd have to drive slow. ;)

That comparison is not valid, and makes no sense what-so-ever.

Common sense, huh. Common sense wuz never common.

You forgot to type #BAZINGA :D

Maybe not standing by itself, but Happy Monkey's reply reshapes it into...

The first spoon can't make you fat
BUT
The first bullet can make you dead

.