Who said it was hard to believe？ I was just clarifying Ikes views.

Yes, that is an unreal level of paranoia. Some pollster working for $10/hr (or extra credit in a college lab) is part of the conspiracy to find out who has guns。 Of course 33bb already has a CWP, which means the government already knows his address, age, etc and that he has and carries guns. So what additional information he's giving away here is anyone's guess.

This is why some people are against gun registration:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2362530.html

It's nobody's business if I have a gun or own guns.

A. That doesn't answer my question in the ****ing slightest. Way to appeal to emotion instead of answering the question, "do we have any right to not have a registry of firearms." And B. The newspaper was wrong in their use of the information act and should not only be punished but there should be limitations to prevent that kind of harmful publishing.

Is it our business if you carry guns in public?
Because the distinction between "have guns" and "carry guns" makes it seem like rara thinks anyone should be able to pack and it's their own damn business.

You mean a phone poll or an online poll? The latter is the same as admitting it here so I'm not sure what the difference would be. As far as the former, why not be proud of it?

I'm not looking for confiscation. I'm looking for significant improvements. I cited Australia and the UK, and Japan elsewhere in the thread, as examples of places where fewer guns = less gun related chaos.

Do I? I have guns in my house. The only time they leave my house is when they are in the back of my car and in a gun holder as required by law in this state. I take them from my house to go hunting with them. It's nobodies damn business that I have guns. Posting that to the general public could put my family in harms way.

Honestly why does it matter to you who has guns and who doesn't? Why is it your business?

Based on your own theories, doesn't something like this further cut down on the number of people who might try and invade your home? After all, it's you guys who claim that burglars, rapists (Trump calls these people "Mexicans"), drug addicts, etc aren't attacking people who might be armed, no?

Doesn't it also show those homes that don't have guns? As such which homes are more likely to be invaded?

That's just culture man.

I believe this to be true. I think 2Outs and prolly Jim, Hue and others are not the ones JAQing off till the last gun is gone but want to look at areas where gun violence can be dramatically reduced without removing that poor bastard's right to own a shotgun if he feels the need to. I think they're in a separate group compared to others ITT.

Yes. Because most of us don't think of that as a "right" at all, because most other civilized countries function quite well and quite freely without it.

That's a dodge. I asked you what your problem would be with it.

Yes, it is our business to know who owns what guns. When they are used to commit a crime, we should be able to find out who owns it and where it came from.

Yes it is our business to know what you've done with your computer. When they are used to commit a crime, we should be able to find out who owns it and where it came from

I have no problem with anyone knowing I have a computer. I'm quite fine with the government tracking any potential crimes people commit on them, such as exchanging child pornography, posting terror or mass shooting threats online, etc.

Notice how Ikes tries to subtly shift from "own guns" to "what you've done with your computer."

Because you having guns puts them at risk.

About to get a real life runthrough of using guns to resist tyranny (or, in this case, to resist paying your bills).


Bunch of yahoos just set up an armed camp in a Federal wildlife refuge.

What other right under the constitution don't you think I have a right to?

Civilized or not it's right there in the constitution, if you want to change that then amend it.

Only by statistics but not really.

I live in NJ and most of the gun deaths in this state occur in Camden, Jersey City and Newark by illegal gun ownership.

All the while even though there are more gun deaths in this country, gun deaths are on a steady decline since the 90's. While gun ownership has spiked in the last 10 years. So statistically we are more safe now than we have been in years even with all these additional firearms.

"Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]"

You want to take my gun rights away because of 1.3% of deaths are caused by guns? Shouldn't you be going after a bigger piece of the pie that will have a bigger impact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi..._United_States

Those damn maths, always making things inconvenient.

I don't believe in "rights" in the "endowed by their creator" sense. I believe rights are socially constructed and should be based on what is most beneficial to society. The better question is what rights do I think you should have but aren't in the constitution. A strict reading of the constitution could very easily find a Chinese style one-child law constitutional.

That's because "the constitution" isn't the be all end all for human government. It's also not an argument in itself.

All it would take to change the current jurisprudence surrounding the second amendment is a Keller decision that went 5-4 the other way.

Haha, what does this mean? I imagine rara in a room with a non-American who finds out he's carrying a gun. He reassures them by saying "don't worry. Statistically you're in more danger in the presence of a gun, but not really."