New Georgia gun law...

[Hill Bill E.]

by the way, I know this is never going to happen

the gun/ammo industry is on a roll right now and no one wants to engage it. But like so many other things, that doesn't mean we shouldn't right?

if you think it isn't a compelling argument I'd sure like to see it differently

again, I am all for the 2nd, I just think we would all be better off if the average buyer had some training but right now that is only up to the individual

it's just hypothetical discussion and thanks for entertaining it so politely

I am all for education! It's the only way to insure our rights and freedoms stay.

And, as you say, it's common sense.

Most states do require training to obtain a permit to carry, however you do have a point, you don't need training to purchase in most states.


However, if a person carries without the permit/training, then they are breaking the law.

I believe everyone should have firearms training, whether they carry or not. Even if a person absolutely hates guns, they should at least be aware of the safe handling of them. They may encounter a situation where the info will be useful.

Education and training of are utmost importance to insure no accidents.

But....criminals don't give a hoot about training, or laws. They are CRIMINALS!! And could care less about civil society.

More laws, more restrictions, these equal less freedom to the law abiding citizen, and mean only one thing to the criminal element-these people can no longer defend themselves from the likes of me.


Yes, education is key, but it should be the individual who seeks it out, and gains the knowledge.

Once the government starts mandating, things get out of hand.

There are enough laws on the books in this country, what we need is consistant enforcement across the board od these laws.

HB

 

[Wyowanderer]

I don't think the right to carry guns can be equated to the right to religion or licensed privileges by the government, state or federal.

The constitution would disagree with you position.

A firearm should require training and education because it has deadly consequences.

Who, pray tell, decides this? The government? The same governmant that can't find millions of dollars or laptops with secret information?

That is the sole purpose. I believe outside the military guns have taken more lives than they have saved but perhaps that might not be the case if people had training?

Please show your work. If you have solid information other than a belief, please share it.
Cars kill more people than guns. Why, then, do we give them to fifteen and sixteen year olds? Because they are inanimate objects. Just like guns. Cars don't kill, people do.

I don't think it is a fair assessment for you to extrapolate what takes place in Chicago or elsewhere without examining the entire picture of why gun crimes are so high in those locations currently. If you think arming everyone in the city would deter violence I'd say that criminals weigh the risk of getting caught versus thinking about the consequences. In fact I'd say that is a cultural pathology in modern America. So it would actually increase violence not deter it. Crime isn't going to subside nor will everyone carry. In theory it might sound good but it's application leaves a lot to be desired.

Once again, please show your work and provide evidence. In fact, arming the populace almost always deters crime.


if you live in an area where you feel it necessary to carry a deadly weapon because you live in fear of your life perhaps you might reconsider your address

Great idea, if you're not poor. Trouble is, most poor people don't have that option. And if they did move, where do you suppose they'd be able to afford to live? Next door to you or me? Not likely.

I'm sure you would agree that mixing booze with firearms or allowing firearms in public places where emotions run high might not be the best idea

probably not, but the constitution doesn't condemn it, either.

Doesn't keeping a gun in a vehicle just seem like a risky proposition since automobiles are so prone to petty theft? Where would you keep it where it would be easily accessible? the glove box? under the seat? chances are you won't have time to acquire even if you needed it

Once again, please show your work. I've carried a loaded firearm in my car(s) for thirty years and never had a problem. But I don't keep it out in the open, either.

I'm a fan of the 2nd Amendment. I have also seen the Jerry Springer show and I don't trust the majority of people to use good judgment in their car on the road much less when they have access to a firearm in a situation of high emotional stress or when a confrontation takes place and tempers flare.

It would appear you're less a fan of the constitution than of the Jerry Springer show. Those people don't represent the vast majority of gun owners/users. I've found nearly all of them to be more responsible when handling firearms than most people are when handling an internet connection.

That doesn't mean you don't have the right to defend yourself but in my experience people lack judicious judgment and often error when interpreting events. If gun ownership was accompanied by education I'd feel more confident in the 2nd Amendment

I find that most people have good sense and can be trusted to do what is right in most situations. They also try to preclude their feelings about most logical matters and deal with fact.


Remember, to ensure gun control, you must practice, practice, practice

Amen, brother. Practice until your hands are black from powder residue.

Peace

 

[SunTzuNephew]

by the way, I know this is never going to happen

the gun/ammo industry is on a roll right now and no one wants to engage it. But like so many other things, that doesn't mean we shouldn't right?

if you think it isn't a compelling argument I'd sure like to see it differently

again, I am all for the 2nd, I just think we would all be better off if the average buyer had some training but right now that is only up to the individual

it's just hypothetical discussion and thanks for entertaining it so politely

Yeah. Better mandate some training before you try and use your First amendment rights...can't have people picking a religion randomly, or using communications devices like the printing press, or internet, or a soap box on the corner without Government training.

Same with court cases: The government will tell you what you need to know and what your rights are. Search and Seizure? The Government knows whats best.

Before it went totally leftist, Hawaii had very strict requirements for pistol permits. You had to take a class offered only by the state. It was offered once a year, and there were ten seats available. But the state wanted to make sure that everyone was 'safe'.

 

[SunTzuNephew]

how can you compare firearms to speech? that's an unfair and inappropriate exaggerated hyperbole. If you'd like to make an analogy do so where it illustrates the point. Speech doesn't have direct deadly consequences among common citizens

I compare them like this:

1. Speech, religion, petitioning government
2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Speech doesn't have deadly consequences? Shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Draw cartoons of Mohamed. Print a totally BS story about a Koran in a Gitmo toilet.

riding a motorcycle with a helmet makes sense, but no you don't have to wear a helmet in some states. That doesn't mean it is the sensible thing to do. Just because you can doesn't make it right or that you should. Can you understand that or is it absolutely necessary to polarize everything?

I can print anything I want. Does that make it right?

And while travel is a right (defined by the USSC) driving a motor vehicle isn't. However, I agree with you....if you don't want to wear a helmet, don't: Society should not be obliged to care for you after an accident, however.

can't we have an evolved 2nd Amendment to cope with the development of social change and social behavior? it isn't 1776, your livelihood doesn't depend on your firearm so this is about sport, defense, and the BOR right?

Laws are constantly changed because the world evolves so legislation has to adjust with that growth; budgets, ordinances, business practices, etc.
again emancipation, suffrage, civil rights all changed practices in our country that did not make sense - see that, we can change old habits and tradition that impedes other peoples rights to life because of negligent operation that could have been remedied by education! hah see how that works man. If education saved one person's life, it would be worth it.

The Second Amendment is not a law. It is a RIGHT, recognized by the founders, and confirmed by the entire USSC as an individual right (Heller).

Now, if you want to change the Constitution, there is a procedure to do that, defined in Article V. Get 2/3 of both houses to float a proposal, get 3/4 of the legislatures of the several states to agree to it, and you're done. It's been done 26 times in 234 years, and attempted well over 1,000 times.

Having gun safety training makes sense. it lowers the risk of potential deadly consequences

There's no evidence that it makes any difference. In fact, law enforcement officers all receive firearms education (not counting the law) and they very often make horrible choices leading to the improper deaths of innocent people. Cops kill bystanders far more often than citizens do. The recent riots in Oakland, over a cop that pretty much accidentally shot a guy instead of using a 'less leathal' taser is just one example.

yes it is a right, but as the world and society changes the responsibility grows. The mere fact people can't have an intelligent discussion without insulting one another should mirror the point.

Who's insulting who? Is any disagreement with your position an insult? It's been said that leftists phrase everything about conservatives as 'evil', while conservatives consider most leftist ideas as simply being wrong.

I understand you'd be afraid of setting precedents that might limit the 2nd Amendment but show me an example where education concerning a deadly object was not a great and beneficial idea

Everyone who has a drivers license has to pass initial written and practical testing before they operate a motor vehicle on public streets. They also have to undergo recurrent written testing, and in many cases they have to have their vehicles safety inspected regularly. The testing confirms they know the laws concerning driving speeds, safe operations, the danger of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Yet far more people are killed by automobiles (which are not a right) than firearms (which are).

 

[SunTzuNephew]

I don't think it is a fair assessment for you to extrapolate what takes place in Chicago or elsewhere without examining the entire picture of why gun crimes are so high in those locations currently. If you think arming everyone in the city would deter violence I'd say that criminals weigh the risk of getting caught versus thinking about the consequences. In fact I'd say that is a cultural pathology in modern America. So it would actually increase violence not deter it. Crime isn't going to subside nor will everyone carry. In theory it might sound good but it's application leaves a lot to be desired.

OK, how about the only people who can project force beyond their own physical skills in Chicago are criminals (and the few law enforcement officers).

The criminals already don't seem to mind the risk of getting caught. There are stringent penalties that are supposed to be imposed, state and federal, but gun crimes are rarely prosecuted against violent criminals (just the innocent mistakes that gun buyers and sellers make).

Or lets look at what you might consider non-pathological. Since the virtual prohibition against handguns especially in the UK, firearms crime rates have increased at an amazing rate. The total rate of firearms crime may be lower (so far) but it's rate is increasing.

If prohibiting firearms prevented crime, Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, Mexico City, among other cities would be safe. The actual facts show that they are dangerous cities for firearms violence. The numbers also show that when shall-issue laws are implemented the crime rate decreases (even more than the overall crime rate in the US decreases). Its funny, but criminals don't seem to like risking their lives against a motivated citizen defending his home.

if you live in an area where you feel it necessary to carry a deadly weapon because you live in fear of your life perhaps you might reconsider your address

Well, bless your heart. Thanks for the advice! I did, I moved to Montana where I can carry a firearm and not have to worry much about it.

I'm sure you would agree that mixing booze with firearms or allowing firearms in public places where emotions run high might not be the best idea

OK, then you must agree that we need to prohibit off-duty law enforcement officers (of any agency) from carrying firearms into social situations like bars...especially where they drink alcohol. In fact, we should prohibit law enforcement from carrying firearms into bars at all, since emotions can run high there. Sporting events, too. Weddings. Hospitals. Domestic violence calls....

Doesn't keeping a gun in a vehicle just seem like a risky proposition since automobiles are so prone to petty theft? Where would you keep it where it would be easily accessible? the glove box? under the seat? chances are you won't have time to acquire even if you needed it

Thats an argument against the stupid storage and transport regulations. I keep my firearm in my holster, where it can't be stolen. I can access it fast enough if I need it.

For the few times I need to leave it in the vehicle, I have a secure storage box for it: Even if the vehicle is stolen, odds are that only a thorough search will discover it, and then tools will be required to open the container.

I'm a fan of the 2nd Amendment. I have also seen the Jerry Springer show and I don't trust the majority of people to use good judgment in their car on the road much less when they have access to a firearm in a situation of high emotional stress or when a confrontation takes place and tempers flare.

That sounds suspiciously like "...but many of my friends are (insert racial group)". Glad you support the basic human rights of self-defense.

BTW, everyone on Springer was acting.

And I've been far less likely to anger at other people while driving with a firearm than you might think. After all, some clown cutting me off isn't worth escalating to a fatality.

That doesn't mean you don't have the right to defend yourself but in my experience people lack judicious judgment and often error when interpreting events. If gun ownership was accompanied by education I'd feel more confident in the 2nd Amendment

So, I only have the basic human, civil right to defend myself when YOU think I demonstrate judgment?

Excuse me?

As the saying goes, who died and left you in charge?

And I dare say you're the one who needs more second amendment training. I'd suggest that you first read the Heller decision and ALL the amicus briefs to it (both sides), then the McDonald decision (all of it, and the amicus briefs).

 

[case]

I believe the new law allows you to enter a restaurant that makes over 60% sales of food but you still cannot drink while carrying.

Actually, HB89, which was signed into law two years ago, made that legal.
SB308, signed last month, legalizes carry into bars, as long as the owner gives permission and legalizes consumption of alcohol while carrying.

 

[captblack]

Actually, HB89, which was signed into law two years ago, made that legal.
SB308, signed last month, legalizes carry into bars, as long as the owner gives permission and legalizes consumption of alcohol while carrying.

I beg to differ ... This is from the section dealing with Public Places:

You may carry a firearm into a restaurant that serves alcohol (gross annual sales are made up of more than 50% from food, check their business license if you are not sure if they are a bar or restaurant) as long as you do not drink alcohol. (16-11-127)

This is from OCGA 16-11-127: f) A person licensed or permitted to carry a firearm by this part shall not consume alcoholic beverages in a restaurant or other eating establishment while carrying a firearm. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

I dont' see much wiggle room in this, do you?

 

[Hill Bill E.]

I dont' see much wiggle room in this, do you?

Nope.:coffeedrink:

Common sense would dictate not to imbibe while carrying.

(we all know common sense isn't all that common:snorkel

I frequent the bar I worked at for many years (bunch of us watch Gunsmoke!) and if I am carrying, I drink coffee.

If I plan on having a drink, the gun stays in the safe at home.:ylsmoke:

 

[case]

I beg to differ ... This is from the section dealing with Public Places:

You may carry a firearm into a restaurant that serves alcohol (gross annual sales are made up of more than 50% from food, check their business license if you are not sure if they are a bar or restaurant) as long as you do not drink alcohol. (16-11-127)

This is from OCGA 16-11-127: f) A person licensed or permitted to carry a firearm by this part shall not consume alcoholic beverages in a restaurant or other eating establishment while carrying a firearm. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

I dont' see much wiggle room in this, do you?

Most of the sites have not updated the changes from SB308 yet. GeorgiaCarry.Org had a page on the changes when it passed, but it looks like they have taken it down for the time being for some reason.

I am actually suprised by the fact that HandgunLawsUS has already updated their information on Georgia.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/georgia.pdf


And GeorgiaPacking.Org's page that explains the law in laymen's terms should be updated soon. It is here http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php

Please note that the above site has not yet been updated.

I'm not arguing, just trying to make people aware of Georgia's new laws. I've followed SB308 from it's inception to it's signing, so please understand that I'm not just repeating rumors or what I read or heard from the media.

 

[Z O O R O P A]

OK, how about the only people who can project force beyond their own physical skills in Chicago are criminals (and the few law enforcement officers).

The criminals already don't seem to mind the risk of getting caught. There are stringent penalties that are supposed to be imposed, state and federal, but gun crimes are rarely prosecuted against violent criminals (just the innocent mistakes that gun buyers and sellers make).

Or lets look at what you might consider non-pathological. Since the virtual prohibition against handguns especially in the UK, firearms crime rates have increased at an amazing rate. The total rate of firearms crime may be lower (so far) but it's rate is increasing.

If prohibiting firearms prevented crime, Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, Mexico City, among other cities would be safe. The actual facts show that they are dangerous cities for firearms violence. The numbers also show that when shall-issue laws are implemented the crime rate decreases (even more than the overall crime rate in the US decreases). Its funny, but criminals don't seem to like risking their lives against a motivated citizen defending his home.



Well, bless your heart. Thanks for the advice! I did, I moved to Montana where I can carry a firearm and not have to worry much about it.



OK, then you must agree that we need to prohibit off-duty law enforcement officers (of any agency) from carrying firearms into social situations like bars...especially where they drink alcohol. In fact, we should prohibit law enforcement from carrying firearms into bars at all, since emotions can run high there. Sporting events, too. Weddings. Hospitals. Domestic violence calls....



Thats an argument against the stupid storage and transport regulations. I keep my firearm in my holster, where it can't be stolen. I can access it fast enough if I need it.

For the few times I need to leave it in the vehicle, I have a secure storage box for it: Even if the vehicle is stolen, odds are that only a thorough search will discover it, and then tools will be required to open the container.



That sounds suspiciously like "...but many of my friends are (insert racial group)". Glad you support the basic human rights of self-defense.

BTW, everyone on Springer was acting.

And I've been far less likely to anger at other people while driving with a firearm than you might think. After all, some clown cutting me off isn't worth escalating to a fatality.



So, I only have the basic human, civil right to defend myself when YOU think I demonstrate judgment?

Excuse me?

As the saying goes, who died and left you in charge?

And I dare say you're the one who needs more second amendment training. I'd suggest that you first read the Heller decision and ALL the amicus briefs to it (both sides), then the McDonald decision (all of it, and the amicus briefs).

sorry for the delay, family comes before all :chef:

SunTzu, would you be so kind as to post some pics of Big Sky - sure would enthrall me and some others here and make this thread a bit more interesting and tolerable

back to the discussion -

You made some very articulate and fair statements. It's clear you have given this a great deal of thought, read detailed literature, compared information and come to the above conclusions some of which I very much agree with. Thanks for taking the time

I may have to reread your replies later as I'm at the end of a long good few days and waning.

This is not necessarily directed at you specifically and there is an open invitation to others to contribute to the conversation.

Forgive me but to me it sounds like people are still confusing and mixing some content and context.

the sole purpose of a gun is to kill period. You can't say that about any other commonly used tool or contraption. I can see your sincerity and excitement concerning the subject but I wonder if some of your prejudice or desire to vehemently protect any encroachment on tradition or any new change might be clouding you from being more coherent or receptive to what may very well make good sense.

I am addressing safety concerns that arise from endless accidents regarding negligent behavior by firearm owners. That is the discussion. Accidents that could be prevented by education and exposure to instruction

I know you have worked hard throughout your life and I respect that, I know the experiences you have encountered during that duration have influenced your convictions and I understand that.

Your certainty though precludes exploring why you think anything is true forever. That we can compare social responsibility and application 200 years ago to be exactly the same today without any price or compromising in life. I think there is some hypocrisy in that belief - that we must attain our freedom at the expense of fellow citizen Americans not military personnel and hold dear to traditions that may no longer serve the common good in their original form

you seem to believe, correct me if I"m wrong friend, that those lives lost due to accidents which may or could have been prevented by a simple course are an acceptable price to celebrate a form of freedom in the symbol of a gun. Which is necessary because government has proven itself to be not only inefficient but full of chicanery and people are opportunistic

It sounds ( to me, DOES NOT mean it is true! but that's how it is coming off to me amigo ) like you're using hyperbole and exaggerating "hypothetical" broad generalizations about people, situations, and places. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your remarks indicate you're ignoring relative information regarding places both international and national to pitch a sound bite. There are good reasons why crime is going down in some places and rising in others and the availability of guns is only one consideration. It's important to try and not confuse the issue. If you want to explore why some places are seeing a decline and others a rise that would be an important and interesting thread. Or if you want to discuss the criminal mind that too would be a worthwhile pursuit

I am talking about safety training. No one is challenging the 2nd A.

If you're carrying a gun around that does make a statement does it not? Would it be over the line to assume you think human beings are either a damn mess or you believe it is prudent to take caution against the relatively low chance the circumstances might present the opportunity where a gun affords you security to protect you and yours? Which is it? or both? hah

:ylsmoke:

for what it is worth, I do not invalidate your beliefs or how you came by them as we are separated by generations, by circumstances, by vast different environments, by values, upbringing, interpretations, time, and ethics or what we equally deem correct to be successful in our day to day lives.

Aside from your feelings on Universal Health Care and your experiences as a physician and as someone who has spent decades as well in the HC community, I am not here trying to convince you to change what you hold as truth for what you think is right for America

I am merely suggesting that it makes practical sense that if we had an effective rule for new gun owners who so choose to invoke the 2nd Amendment they are required to have some discipline and skill in knowing how it functions and properly apply it's use because the consequences are dire and cost a lot of lives ~~~> unnecessarily <~~~

that's the rub, power without discipline yields nothing of any virtue

ps - i enjoyed your humor

 

[DrMoab]

the sole purpose of a gun is to kill period.

Bull.

The reason firearms were created was to kill however I take great offense to the idea that in today's world the soul purpose is to kill.

The last best guess said that their were over 350,000,000 guns in America.

If the soul purpose of each and every one of those guns was to kill, America would no longer have a population.

I own three very expensive tools that were manufactured to do nothing more than make very very small holes in a target and a great distance. Trying to use these tools would be silly to try and kill anything larger than say a squirrel.

For all intents and purposes a knife, a hatchet and a sword were all created to kill too yet these tools have been used in many ways since they were created to NOT kill people. Knives work great to carve wood, hatchets are invaluable to chop firewood and swords have led the way to machetes. A great instrument to clear brush.

 

[Outback]

Whats the bumper sticker say? Oh yes. My guns have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car. More people are killed each years by cars than guns. More people are murdered by knives than by guns. Ive used my guns to defend lives. You could say my gun has even saved lives. Guns scare you. I understand. They need to be respected. You must never become complacent with them. Mine are kept in my safe when Im home with the exception of one of my handguns which is in a quick access handgun safe by my bed. The fact though is that we have the right to own a firearm. End of Discussion. Once you start doing away with any right just because it scares you or doesnt serve your need or is in the way then we are no longer a free society. We were given this Right by our Founding Fathers because they new that ALL Governments get greedy for power. The Right to have and bear arms is to protect all of our rights from those who seek to take them away.

 

[Z O O R O P A]

Bull.

The reason firearms were created was to kill however I take great offense to the idea that in today's world the soul purpose is to kill.

The last best guess said that their were over 350,000,000 guns in America.

If the soul purpose of each and every one of those guns was to kill, America would no longer have a population.

I own three very expensive tools that were manufactured to do nothing more than make very very small holes in a target and a great distance. Trying to use these tools would be silly to try and kill anything larger than say a squirrel.

For all intents and purposes a knife, a hatchet and a sword were all created to kill too yet these tools have been used in many ways since they were created to NOT kill people. Knives work great to carve wood, hatchets are invaluable to chop firewood and swords have led the way to machetes. A great instrument to clear brush.

you kind of prove the point though

a gun can't do anything else, as oppose to your other examples

certainly, outside of "plinking" it exists to kill - what other use does it have? you won't ring dinner bells with a 357, you're not going to cut thick brush with a 12 gauge

Just because there are a bazillion firearms does not mean the function changes. Two separate things. You're confusing the subject, whether or not people use them is another issue

yes it's a tool but a deadly one by nature, a tool with a limited capacity when it comes to versatility in its function.

sure you can say 50K people die by automobile related accidents every year but that is not an appropriate analogy. A car is intended for transportation. Just like a gun is intended to kill, whether it's a 22 or w/e

you can make a balloon out of a condom but that isn't what it is meant for is it

 

[Z O O R O P A]

Whats the bumper sticker say? Oh yes. My guns have killed less people that Ted Kennedy's car. More people are killed each years by cars than guns. More people are murdered by knives than by guns. Ive used my guns to defend lives. You could say my gun has even saved lives. Guns scare you. I understand. They need to be respected. You must never become complacent with them. Mine are kept in my safe when Im home with the exception of one of my handguns which is in a quick access handgun safe by my bed. The fact though is that we have the right to own a firearm. End of Discussion. Once you start doing away with any right just because it scares you or doesnt serve your need or is in the way then we are no longer a free society. We were given this Right by our Founding Fathers because they new that ALL Governments get greedy for power. The Right to have and bear arms is to protect all of our rights from those who seek to take them away.

no it's not the end of discussion

again, you're confusing the subject.

Automobiles are intended for transport, it's an inappropriate analogy. Apples and oranges, do you understand why?

who said guns scare me?

I'm talking about increasing skill and instruction for owners, which would in return empower the 2nd Amendment, make owners more efficient when it comes to application, and save lives

no one is talking about government or how or what they think about it or taking rights away, read the thread please

it sounds like you're a responsible owner and have taken the kind of precautions I think all owners should take, good job!

no one is engaging the issue. I have not heard one reasonable argument against increasing education and safety awareness for owners. this isn't about the Bill Of Rights or the Constitution, it's about safety training and promoting correct and skillful application and the use of guns -

it's about responsibility and putting deadly power in the hands of people who had no discipline or education to acquire it.

which leads to negligence and operator error. I'm not talking about criminals, that is a DIFFERENT subject. people will commit crimes whether they have instruction or not - this is about minimizing operator error and promoting safety - think of it like sex ed. the more you know, the better off you are

 

[Hill Bill E.]

Guns are meant to kill. True.

However, firearms are inanimate objects.

Guns do not kill people.

People kill people, often using guns.


I agree with you on education, it's extremely important.

I don't agree with the government mandating it, tracking it, and eventually using it against the citizens.

It's happened, over and over around the world.

History repeats itself.

Where does education start?

At home.

The government removed it from school, (along with other important things)

Scouts, the NRA, certified instructors, shooting clubs, friends, hunting buddies, the Military, etc, etc, ad naseum (sp?)


There are endless opportunities for firearm education.

Do criminals care? NO Do criminals take classes? NO


The majority of Law Abiding citizens who own firearms are responsible.


Get the government involved, and it will lead to keeping records, tracking firearm owners, tracking carry permit holders, registering firearms, and eventually, confiscation of said firearms.

WHO does this affect? The Law Abiding citizen, and only the law abiding citizen.


Why? Becuase CRIMINALS don't care! They are Criminals!


You can keep your 'dreams', I'll keep my weapons, and train my sons in the safe use and handling of them. (if I had daughters, I'd train them also)

Gun Control is hitting your target.