I can't tell you how many times I've heard the good folks over at the Huffington Post say that "they're not going to take your guns away, whacko. chill the fuck out. You're being paranoid."

And whenever gun control legislation is pointed out, they'll usually say, "chill the fuck out. the stuff you own now may be illegal in the future, but that only applies to future gun sales. The stuff you own will be grandfathered in".

Well, not if Missouri Democrats have their way. They've never heard of grandfathering. They've proposed legislation that would make any rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazine completely illegal. Any pistol that holds more than 10 rounds will be completely illegal. If you happen to own such a weapon, you will have 90 days to turn said weapons into authorities or you'll be considered a felon.

Here's a link to the proposed legislation.

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

So maybe Mari can help me out on this. Setting the 2nd amendment aside, wouldn't this be a blatant violation of the 4th amendment right to be secure in your property? Wouldn't this be a direct violation of the Constitutional provision that bars ex-post-facto laws?

-- Modified on 2/14/2013 2:23:37 PM

A very similar bill is proposed in Minnesota, except its a 7 round limit on the magazines. What bothers me is that nothing is grandfathered in and most pistols and many rifles manufactured you cant even get a 7 round magazine for. Its effectively disarming me and limiting you to a single shot weapon.
   There is an email circulating in Minnesota threatening to have law abiding gun owners turn in felony magazines the day after the law goes into effect and demand to be charged and incarcerated. It was suggested that if 10,000 people did this they could never prosecute much less enforce the law. Effectively making future prosecutions very hard to enforce as well.
    The ultimate goal is to disarm everyone of these evil weapons.
 

I want them to come for your guns, but not to come for your pussy Pussy doesn't kill people

and I want to make sure Willy sees this whackjob list from LaStoopid LaPierre:

NRA Enemies List

Self-Reliance= Take out your own brain tumor NRAsters


Congress of  Neurological Surgeons
American Academy of Pediatrics
A Dozen Nursing Associations
A Dozen Pediatric Medical Associations
Gray Panthers
AARP
ACLU
US Catholic Conference
Police Foundation
Anything with the word Jewish in It
American Academy of Pediatrics
National Association of Children's Hospitals
AMA
American Association of Pediatric Nurses
Everything Medical that Cares for Children
US Catholic Conference
American Nurses Association
Ambulatory Pediatric Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
National Association of Children's Hospitals
Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
Kansas City Chiefs
Kansas City Royals
St. Louis Rams
Stony Fields Yogurt
National Association of Chain Drug Stores
National Association of Elementary School Principals
National Political Congress of Black Women
NAACP
National Council of Negro Women
National Black Nurses Association
Urban League
SCLC
Hadassah
Central Conference of American Rabbis
American Jewish Congress
American Jewish Committee
American Defamation League

Anything Jewish The NRA does hate their jews.

Repuboputzofaces Invited Crazy Waynster to testify; the same idiots who are going to lose the Hegel confirmation by Friday.

How dare you fuckin' take care of children?

Who does ah luv me some more of?  NRA or Clownster Rubio regurgitated every loser proposition from Romney.

You might  be a proctologist because you just pulled that out of your ass. Now jeffiepuke go get obama’s heard out of his ass.


OK  OK I was kidding about jeffiepuke being a doctor because he is not butt he no doubt pulled that out of his ass.

You’re welcome
For God and Country


One more thing…this one’s for you jeffiepuke

ooo-eee-ooo ah ah

ting tang walla walla bing bang  

I don't think so.

Parliamentary supremacy does nothing to excite or please me.

Love or hate Great Britain. I'm glad I don't live there.

Who continues to experiment on his own brain.

American Defamation League, also known as MSNBC news.

def·a·ma·tion:

the act of saying false things in order to make people have a bad opinion of someone or something : the act of defaming someone or something

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/defamation

Read that puppy again - it says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES ADN SEIZURES.

    And, of course, if the police have a warrant to enter your house because they believe you have guns, the resulting search and seizure is not "unreasonable." So I don't see a 4th Amend problem.

Whether all or parts of the law will be voided by the Second Amendment is the real problem. The various gun control "safe harbors" recognized by the Heller decision are themselves subject to much interpretation.

       Following a mass shooting by a registered gun owner, they banned private ownership of handguns almost completely/ Grandfathering? Ex post facto – no sir, they made citizens turn em in:

       "Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison."

    Even better, the law has teeth:

       "Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.

         In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29."

     Forget about his “license to kill”” – these days, James Bond couldn’t even get a gun to shoot people.

Gotta love Great Britain

Could not find anything... Nothing like that is likely to get passed in Virginia with both the houses controlled by Republicans and a Republican Governor.  .***Whew***

Re: I want them to come for your guns, but not to come for your pussy Pussy doesn't kill people

With police in Detriot refusing to enter certain areas of the city after dark and police in Chicago repeated found to have ignored 911 calls to among other things, make out with a lunch date, drink coffee and finish their lunches (on many occasions, video taped on at least 5 of them), why do you insist that I trust them to protect me?
   I live 20 minutes from the county police station. When my neighbors 10 year old son was attacked by a dog it took 35 minutes for the first cop to show up. He was bitten 3 times before his father could hit the dog with a shovel and push him onto the hood of his truck. With response times like that I feel the need to be able to protect my family.
    I replied to the same post a couple threads below... I wont rewrite my response and refuse to copy and paste something you wouldn't give any credence to anyway.
   

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html

Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

 "In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England". However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever "gun control" law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.

In 1919 the British government, in fear of communist insurgents and domestic and foreign anarchists, passed its first sweeping anti-gun laws (under the smokescreen of crime control) even though gun related crime was almost non existent in the England of the day. British subjects could now only buy a firearm if they could show "a good reason" for having one and the firearm certificate system that we have today (implemented and abused by police) was introduced. The 1920 gun control act was the beginning of the end for private firearms ownership in England. So much for Robert Gascoyne-Cecil's remarks of "a rifle in every cottage in England" being a laudable goal.

In 1936 short barrelled shotguns (such as shot pistols used for ratting) and fully automatic firearms were outlawed. Why? Not because such firearms were ever misused but because the government dictated that civilians had "no legitimate reason" for owning them. Where have we heard that before! Another slide down the slippery slope. The reasoning has now changed from the government NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS FOR THE RESTRICTIONS to the people NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS, to a government TELLING them that there was NO ACCEPTABLE REASON.

The English Bill of Rights states "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law" Sir William Blackstone, commenting on this in his Commentaries on the laws of England said, "The fifth and last auxiliary RIGHT of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law, which is also declared by the same statute IW & M ft.2c.2 and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression". I wonder what happened to "the natural RIGHT of resistance and self preservation" (from domestic criminals and out of control governments). Have not the "sanctions of society and laws" been shown "insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression"?

In 1936 the government added a "safe storage" requirement on the owners of handguns and rifles to "prevent the guns falling into the wrong hands" Where have we heard that one before, and how often do the British police use that particular requirement to harass what is left of the British gun owning community?

As a direct consequence of the 1920 gun control act, not only did Britain not have "a rifle in every cottage" but they had to ask American citizens to send them every type of rifle and handgun at the outbreak of WWII, so British people would have some means of defending their homes and islands against the Nazi hordes massing across the English Channel. Americans responded by sending every type of firearm to the unarmed and helpless people of Britain. No surprise, but at the end of the war the British people did not get to keep the guns, the government seized many of them back and dumped them in the sea. Such was the British government's gratitude to the American public and distrust of their own people.

In 1946 "self defence" was no longer considered a good reason for requiring a police issued firearms certificate. The slippery slope got even steeper.

In 1953 carrying any type of weapon for self defence was made illegal, making the streets even safer for the criminal element and giving great "crime control" soundbites to the police and press.

In 1967 a chap by the name of Harry Roberts blasted three policemen to death in a London street using a 9mm Luger pistol and the British government restricted shotguns for the very first time. Try to figure out the logic... handgun used... shotguns licensed for the first time in British history. Opportunistic, or am I just being a cynical bastard?

In 1982 black powder muzzle loader shooters and handloaders were required to allow police inspection of their security arrangements to ensure "safe storage" of the powder they possessed, meaning that agents of the state could demand entry into an Englishman's home at any time of day or night without a warrant.

In 1988 all semi-automatic rifles were banned, including pump action rifles. The personal property of law abiding people was once again outlawed and seized. All the guns were registered and easy to find, that is to say, all the legally held ones.

In 1996 all handguns were banned and they too were all registered with the agents of the state. Well, need I say more? You get the picture. Also in 1996 carrying any knife with a blade longer than 3 inches was made illegal. Presumably one cannot stab someone to death with a three inch knife. You now had to show "good reason" for carrying a knife, the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty of a crime, was gone.

In England today you cannot carry any type of weapon for self defence and you cannot use a firearm to defend your home, family, or property. The gun and weapon laws have made crime safe for criminals and the other violent thugs and miscreants who infest our country today.

In 2006 the government passed the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The VCRA restricted all "realistic" toy/replica guns. Now Britons were not to be trusted with even imitation non-firing replicas. "Violent crime reduction" was once again used as the smokescreen to enact oppressive laws and deprive the law abiding of their property. As part of the VCRA an airgun can no longer be purchased by mail order and the name and address of the purchaser must be registered with the seller. Is the bigger picture now getting clearer?

In 2009 talks with the British government were started to devolve airgun laws to the Scottish parliament. If and when the Scottish parliament is given the power over airgun legislation the Parliament has vowed to ban the sale of all airguns in Scotland. In the coming years, England will follow the Scottish example and airgun registration and an eventual licensing system will follow. The slippery slope is now in a vertical freefall.




"All that is required for evil
to prosper is for good men to do nothing"   "

They have had only one since 1996.  We've had so many I'm starting to lose count. Of course, we are a larger country, so the comparison is not really apt and the statistics as to gun violence seem to have gone up according  to some (but not others - depends on how you define it).

      But my view of gun control is that it is like sex - even when it's bad, it's good.

Nonetheless, I feel safer here than in GB and much of Europe. I know it’s mostly a familiarity issue but the statistics back me up regarding violent crime. I actually have almost no fear of succumbing to a mass murder event in the U.S. It would be even lower if I was allowed to carry concealed.

According to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.

Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.

In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery.

One in 40 people in England and Wales had their cars stolen in 1999, the highest rate in the 17 developed countries examined.

Just one in 200 Americans suffered a car theft while in Japan there was only one per 1,000 of the population.

The study looked at crime rates in 12 western European countries plus Poland, Canada, the U.S., Australia and Japan.

The chances of becoming a victim of any crime in England and Wales were second only to Australia.

Here, 26 per cent suffered from crime against an average across all the countries of just 21 per cent.

England and Wales are among the countries 'most pressured by crime', the report concludes.

The two countries had the equal highest number of crimes per head of population of all 17 states.

There were 58 incidents for every 100 inhabitants in England and Wales - the same as Australia.

The study said the size of the sample meant first place in many categories came down to statistical accident, suggesting that for many areas of crime Britain may actually be worst in the world.

Its authors insisted the general rankings accurately reflect the real situation.

Home Secretary Jack Straw admitted the survey painted a bleak picture for Britain.

He said that after four years in power, Labour still had a mountain to climb to defeat crime. He added: 'Levels of victimisation are higher here than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime.

'So, while I pay tribute to the police, councils and communities for their hard work in reducing crime over recent years, no one should be under any illusions about the challenges ahead.

'Crime may be falling but it is still too high, and we have a great deal more to do to make Britain a safer place in which to live.'

Shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe said: 'It's no wonder the people of England and Wales have more chance of becoming victims of crime when there are over 2,500 fewer police, violent crime is soaring and 30,000 convicted prisoners have been let out before serving even half their sentences.

'Four years after the last election it is clear Labour have failed to be tough on crime as they promised they would be.'

Experts said one reason Britain had higher crime rates was because it had a higher population density.

More people living in cities - and more people living alone - gave greater opportunities for crimes like burglary, said Professor Michael Hough of South Bank University.

He said the apparently high crime rate in Australia could be due to a growing drug problem in Sydney, which is home to a fifth of the country's 19million population.

But the latest research is a big embarrassment to Labour.

Recent statistics show that, while overall crime in Britain is falling, violence, particularly street robbery, is rising sharply.

One of Labour's key election slogans during its 1997 election triumph was 'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html#ixzz2KvplFpl9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

What are "persons, houses, papers, and effects" other than your property? The persons part (I think) relates to ownership of yourself. Ownership of your effects would include guns, would it not?

What makes a seizure reasonable? Isn't it typically evidence that a crime has been committed?

What about the prohibition against ex-post-facto laws?

And what about the last clause of the 5th amendment?

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

even leaving aside the reality that I easily can pull statistics that seem to show gun control does reduce gun homicides and suicides, if we assume causation:

"The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).[3]"

[from Wikipedia citing the UN Report]. So your stats are no better or worse than these.

      But we cannot use either stats because the law is simply not the determining factor as to whether a person will use a firearm to harm himself, or others. It is one factor, but not a determinative one. The Harvard study posted by Spades last week does the best job of pointing this out using international statistics – more control does not equal less gun violence but neither does less gun control.

     Now shut up about the statistics you pulled from the Guns R Us web site, or I’m going to have Scully and Mulder investigate you again.

Mein, I've thought long and hard about this, and I gotta say, no, guns don't really deter crime. They don't increase crime either.

You and I both know that guns are used all the time to prevent crimes, and to protect people. But does it really deter overall crime rates?

Mississippi and Maryland have very different gun laws. Mississippi has very lax gun laws, Maryland, as you know, has fairly strict gun laws. You know what you get for these differences? Nearly identical per capita rates of murders with guns. The same could be said of California and Arizona. Entirely different gun laws. Nearly identical results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

I think poverty plays a far bigger role in the overall crime rate than guns.

In your example, we see two cities of Washington, D.C. and Chicago. Yes, their gun laws differ somewhat, but not by much. D.C.'s murder rate has plummeted not because of gun laws, but because they made sure that certain parts of the city aren't shit holes anymore.

Canada has fairly lax gun laws, at least by international standards, while most of Europe has very strict gun laws. Neither have very high murder rates. Curious, no?

You're quite right about the UK though. Without any way to defend yourself, your average thug at a pub is king. I have no doubt that this has contributed to increase the UK's crime rate. However, we should remember that a large portion of that island nation is urban, and we know that you have more crime in urban areas.

But the one thing I have noticed is that Americans tend to mind their own damn business. It's considered rude to but into other people's conversations. We have a concept we call "personal space". Not many of the world's cultures have this notion.

Are Americans more likely to keep to themselves because at some level they realize that anyone could have a gun? That you can't start shit with people at random because you might end up dead? I think that's probably has something to do with it. But I doubt it's the primary driving factor.

-- Modified on 2/14/2013 8:55:21 PM

in Aurora at midnight. A masked figure standing near the exit door has thrown a canister emitting gas and smoke. He starts firing.

         You are sitting on the other side of the dark movie theater. Would you even dare to pull your gun and shoot across the theater at the sound of the gun fire? A bunch of people are wearing costumes. How do you tell which ones are bad guys? Would the gun really make you any safer?

      It may make you FEEL that way but, in reality, few criminal-citizen encounters are set up so clean that the citizen -who has never actually been in a fire fight - can simply pull the gun, identify the bad guys, and shoot without hitting someone else by mistake.

I will agree that there are millions of variables that cant be broken down to a few statistics. Taking statistics from one nation and compairing the years proceeding the ban to those after should be a valid argument. The facts are you cant find a society that has removed guns from the general public and had violent crime rates drop. Murder rates might but in the grand scheme they are a very small portion of violent crime , less then 5%.
There are places in Detroit, Chicago and most metro cities I wouldnt walk in the Dark without a gun and if we cant make them safe why should I be disarmed?
   If we cant attach mental health reform, manditory sentences and prosecution and follow through on them before taking my rights I wont ever agree.
    The truth is I agree with manditory background checks, ammo permits are fine, even magazine limits and firearm safety to buy a gun, including a section on safe securement and storage. We could also even look at the minimum age for handguns, 21 is probably to young in most cases, drug testing for a permit to purchase, and even biogaurding triggers. But if more regulations are added most gun owner want some assurances that it wont move another step towards a ban in 5 yrs or after the next mass killing. A true gun ban would be no different than drugs, criminals will still get them and I think you ll see an increase in violent crime. If that proves to be a fact we would never get our gun rights back.
   

1) Picture yourself in one of those theater seats. The shooter opens fire and people all around you start to drop. Would you REALLY rather be sitting there holding just that extra large tub of hot buttered popcorn with free refills or holding a 40 S&W with a 16 round magazine with a 110 lumen Streamlight strobe flashlight and laser sight?

2) With all those people between me and the shooter, even if I can’t safely fire to save everyone, I’ll wager that at some point after he kills enough people in front of me that I’ll be able to do something such that most likely at least I won’t die.

3) What are the chances that if we’re in a theater that openly allows concealed carry patrons the shooter picks a different target?

Hit enter to soon. The simple answer is a gun might not help in that situation and I don't think I'd ever shoot in that case. Maybe the fact that it wasn't a gun free zone would have detered the attack? Maybe it would have helped if you were sitting directly behind him?
    Theories about individual incidents have to many variables to ever carry much weight. I'd contend that he could have used other items and killed 12, just as easily as you can blame the AR15.
     Dont we as american have the right to feel safe? The preamble of the constitution states we the people...  a common defence, promote the general welfare... I could argue that conceal and carry laws do just that, very few crimes are committed by people with conceal and carry permits, even lower then the average of the general population.

Urban areas have more crime because its easier to be annomous, committing the crime, leaving the scene and blending in after even if theres a discription of you. Drugs of all kinds are a huge motivation of all violent crime. Some studies of violent offenders have stats as high as 70% have a drug or alcohol addiction. Drugs are easier to get in urban areas.
   If you look at Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Idaho, Wyoming and Wisconsin gun murders are so low per 100k (.835 per) that they are better than many countries with total gun bans. Eight states in the top 21 for gun ownership per household but lower gun murder rates than Australia and almost on par with GB.
       Here is a list. States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners
•1. Wyoming - 59.7%
•3. Montana - 57.7%
•4. South Dakota - 56.6%
•6. Idaho - 55.3%
•10. North Dakota - 50.7%
•12. Wisconsin - 44.4% (Battleground state. See Wisconsin in 2012 Elections.)
•16. Iowa - 42.9% (Battleground state. See Iowa in 2012 Elections.)
•21. Minnesota - 41.7%
    Do guns deter crime? There is only one way to find out and it's not a gamble I think we should take.

Same citizen in the movie theater, citizen has taken cover behind seat row...

Gunman comes into sight, walking into said citizens seat aisle...

Who stands a better chance of surviving:

The armed citizen with weapon drawn at the ready or the unarmed citizen?

Hey Marikod. I've got several friends living in the UK. They all say crime is up. The Daily Mail had an article relating to that, several articles actually. In Lancashire, for example, violent crime is up 598% since the gun laws were passed. That's 598%. Overall, the UK crime rate has increased, on average, 89%. Home invasions are up 300%. Doesn't say much for persons to be secure in their homes there, does it?

the best situation for me or you individually.

        Plus you leave out that, once you start firing, you are now at risk from the police shooting you when they finally get there or, more likely, another concealed carry patron shooting you from the back bc he can't tell if you are a good guy or bad guy.

     Scenario (3) is the intriguing one. Neither of us can answer that but I would suggest, sir, that the chances are much higher if we have a criminal planning a crime rather than a deranged idiot planning a massacre.

      I think I can support the right to keep guns in your home to deter home invasions bc that is the one place where from a percentage standpoint we have a clean identifiable bad guy and the home owner can defend and likely even deter the bad guy without posing an undue risk to others.

But concealed carry in public - the risks outweigh the benefits.

MSNBC is also  the defecation league to which jeffirpuke is a charter member.

If I could carry in public it would only be for the personal protection of me and my family. I, like most I think, do not see themselves as some sort of undeputised police officer. Once I draw a weapon I most certainly am knowingly assuming all the risks and responsibilities associated. A cop might shoot me. That might be on me, but the cop might be negligent as well (granted I could still be dead). I might shoot an innocent, but that’s on me as well. I could face criminal or civil charges (manslaughter, wrongful death, etc.) I certainly must weigh those risks against the odds of doing nothing. But it should be MY choice to make not a preemptive government choice because something bad might happen. Take look around at all the dead people. Something BAD is already happening.

Anti gun rights people tend to extrapolate every scenario into a worst case situation that resembles some reenactment of the Gun Fight at the OK Corral. With 49 states now allowing various forms of concealed carry, where are even the anecdotal examples?

Regarding #3 and Aurora, everything I’ve read indicates the shooter did NOT select theaters closer to his home that had no posted signs forbidding weapons. The shooter did NOT select larger theaters that had no posted signs forbidding weapons. It would seem the fact that this theater posted signs prohibiting weapons might have been a factor. How many mass killings take place in posted “gun free zones” such as schools and even military posts (Fort Hood) vs. police stations or public shooting ranges?

I own four weapons, all of them are mainstream models (Two Springfield XDM semiautomatic pistols-9mm and 40 S&W, a Ruger Mini 14-.223 semiauto rifle and a Garrand M1 rifle-an 80 year old WWII relic).  Yet under New York’s new law, one now proposed in Missouri and one they’re thinking about in Illinois as well as the federal law proposal would make EVERY ONE of my weapons illegal. ALL of them.

Thats the true problem, they dont want all guns just 70% of them and the most functional ones for self defense. I'm not going to carry around a shotgun or deer rifle.
       

http://youtu.be/lldxmpx51lk