Uncle Punk

Not entirely true but accurate for the vast majority, enough so that if it would happen again it would most likely end with a standoff or exchange of bullets, totally dependent on the governments actions. Peace loving people just want to go about their business without the government making their situation more dangerous or being deprived of property.

Rep & buy more ammo

Once released from prison is his life less valuable than yours that he shouldn’t be afforded the right to self protection or to join others in arms against a tyrannical government? What leads you to believe that you are superior to others that your life is more valuable?

You fucker' date=' I was excited to see a Shield up for grabs out in the wild until I made it to the end of your sentence. Gouger.[/font']

Europe and Canada got them.

There were some seriously fucked up reactions to 911, patriot act and the TSA being two big ones. Yes there are right and wrong reactions, caring doesn't mean your solutions aren’t diabolical.

We are not in a free state and you suggesting additional gun laws will surely slow down the process of us ever getting there. The makeup of our state legislature is very disappointing regardless of what party is in power. Some of them are like you, gun owners that like gun laws and are the enemy from within. Sometimes we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. I do have a very hard time asking for more laws and regulations no matter what good intentions people see as a possible outcome.

http://shop.holsterloops.com/ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Raven-Concealment-Systems/305851175686#!/RDRKydex?fref=ts

http://www.joerocket.com/catalog/index.cfm/237/130/Pants/Alter_Ego_Pant

No such reassurances are expected nor needed in a place where freedom exists. We get to pursue our own destiny the outcome is not guaranteed. I'm not so sure you are grasping the concept of free men exercising a right. The people that live in Free states don't jump through stupid made up bullshit hoops to carry a firearm. The rest of the free citizens of those states that choose not to touch a firearm have laws to punish the ones that cause harm. I cannot figure out why you feel the need to complicate such a system. If you can point me to some information that leads to problems in states that don’t require a license to carry a firearm I'm all ears. In the mean time sounding like a socialist bureaucrat won't win you any friends with the people that value freedom so you should expect opposition to your inclinations of a nanny state.

The goal is to eliminate the license all together not add more stupid onerous bureaucracy bullshit. You are confusing restrictions on where firearms should be with a licensing process, they are two separate issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU

http://www.aresgear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=33

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/30/2012_chicago_murders_so_far_436

http://www.urbanertslings.com/twopihaform4.html

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2012/12/27/homeowner-uses-sword-to-scare-off-burglar/

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2012/12/26/man-arrested-after-amherst-gas-station-is-robbed-by-man-with-baseball-bat/

This is another example of why we need to no longer allow & eliminate registering firearms along with concealed carry permits. We should give the media exactly what they are asking for by posting such information.

Your first mistake is expecting the opposition to be forthright in their battle against rights. Their goal is to disarm the masses not let you determine the narrative. The mainstream news is first about making money and is under no obligation to provide anyone with the truth about anything or feed you what you want to hear. If they happen to have an agenda then how they go about it is totally up to them and it is to be expected that it will be framed to their advantage as I would when engaged with advancing my own agenda. The people that are interested in gun control aren’t concerned with the details or meaningful results. Most would try to redefine what an assault weapon is when faced with the knowledge that this last shooting was committed with just a run of the mill semi-automatic firearm. What they are trying to accomplish will not give them the results they hope for but they feel the effort will make them better people because they care. They are happy allowing government to provide their protection and are blinded to the fact there are more people around them capable of doing good than causing harm, as evident from the overwhelming number of firearms that cause no harm. That blindness causes them to lash out at the tools the protector’s use in some sort of a perverted attempt to ward off their own inadequacies or self control.

This is nothing new and several other states have the same law. The firearm used in the most recent shooting in Connecticut was not an assault weapon. Are you suggesting that the next assault weapons ban have a more stringent definition so as to exclude the weapon used from ownership for others across the country? We can clearly see how making things illegal protects all of us from someone misusing a tool.

Good for him, trying to point out that merely possessing something doesn't mean it will cause harm if your intentions are admirable. Isn't that what gun owners have been stating all along? You have a friend in the media that proves your point and you want him prosecuted for doing something which you believe should be legal.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

I hate these overmoding uptight pussies. This new avatar is acceptable but not spectacular like the last one.