LDS Freedom Forum

AgaetisTakk wrote:

Army Of Truth wrote:http://www.infowars.com/18-little-known ... -us-safer/

Sighting Infowars as fact is extremely intellectually dishonest. You're blind trust in and institution who's sole purpose is to indoctrinate people with beliefs that have no evidence or credible research show you may be victim to mental health issues such as differentiating between right and wrong (good vs evil). I'm sure LDS Family Services could aid you if you're will to accept their guidance.

Lastly, I linked to a conservative libertarian website that you deem left-wing because you didn't like what they said. Classic cognitive dissonance.

Wow, you're now saying I have "mental health issues such as differentiating between right and wrong"? Really? :o) Look who's talking. =;

It's very immature to simply shoot the messenger without proving through FACTS.

Like I said, more predictable ad hominem attacks. i-)

Never mind the FACTS people, let's attack Alex Jones (InforWars) and ________ (insert name) :p

Army Of Truth wrote:

AgaetisTakk wrote:

Army Of Truth wrote:http://www.infowars.com/18-little-known ... -us-safer/

Sighting Infowars as fact is extremely intellectually dishonest. You're blind trust in and institution who's sole purpose is to indoctrinate people with beliefs that have no evidence or credible research show you may be victim to mental health issues such as differentiating between right and wrong (good vs evil). I'm sure LDS Family Services could aid you if you're will to accept their guidance.

Lastly, I linked to a conservative libertarian website that you deem left-wing because you didn't like what they said. Classic cognitive dissonance.

Wow, you're now saying I have "mental health issues such as differentiating between right and wrong"? Really? :o) Look who's talking. =;

It's very immature to simply shoot the messenger without proving through FACTS.

Like I said, more predictable ad hominem attacks. Never mind the FACTS people, let's attack Alex Jones and ________ (insert name) :p

I understand your anger. It's hard to accept facts when it goes against your beliefs. I struggled with this issue for many years.

My love for firearms was passionate until my 3 yr old nephew was killed during an accidental shooting at home. I've seen the struggle with depression my sisters family has gone through coming to term with their mistake. More recently my neighbors 12 yr old was killed accidentally as well. Listening to them talk of cleaning up their childs brain off a wall changes you.

It took me many years to put aside my biases and realize I needed to stop listening to the talking mouths of corporations and politicians. After years of reasoning, and study, I've came to a new conclusion. I doubt that conclusion matters to you because it defers from your narrative. I learned to finally give up trust to people that have an agenda.

BTW, it's obviously YOUR lack of confidence that you cannot profile real facts behind your stance that you parrot from the mainstream media. :))

Army of Truth
I know you probably already know this but I'm going to post it anyway. I'm afraid you are fighting a losing battle against these two. No amount of facts will change their thinking because they aren't capable of rational thought. They make decisions based on feelings rather than reality. Obamabots and British Peasants aren't trained to consume facts. They are only trained to regurgitate talking points. Whether it's Globull warming or gun control, it doesn't matter. Stop while you're ahead and save yourself a lot of energy.

Army Of Truth wrote:BTW, it's obviously YOUR lack of confidence that you cannot profile real facts behind your stance that you parrot from the mainstream media. :))

Again, no amount of fact will dissuade you from your strongly held beliefs. Your assumption that I'm a victim of the media is unscrupulous. The Skeptical Libertarian & Politifact or anything but mainstream. But... since you didn't like what they had to say, you slander and make personal attacks. That my friend is intellectually dishonest

AgaetisTakk wrote: I understand your anger. It's hard to accept facts when it goes against your beliefs. I struggled with this issue for many years.

My love for firearms was passionate until my 3 yr old nephew was killed during an accidental shooting at home. I've seen the struggle with depression my sisters family has gone through coming to term with their mistake. More recently my neighbors 12 yr old was killed accidentally as well. Listening to them talk of cleaning up their childs brain off a wall changes you.

It took me many years to put aside my biases and realize I needed to stop listening to the talking mouths of corporations and politicians. After years of reasoning, and study, I've came to a new conclusion. I doubt that conclusion matters to you because it defers from your narrative. I learned to finally give up trust to people that have an agenda.

First off, I'm sorry that you interpret my facts with anger. Maybe you interpret this as anger because these facts go against your beliefs?

Secondly, sorry about your loss. However, I have similar stories about my 5 yr old niece that drowned in a pool and my 17 yr old nephew that died from a car accident. I agree. This does change you. However, it didn't change my value and my truth as to what my rights are. I'm not yelling to take away or ban cars or pools. So what is your point of your emotional stories? It sounds like you are coming to a new conclusion similar to Obama's narrative of "change" and "do something" attitude. :-\

caddis wrote:Army of Truth
I know you probably already know this but I'm going to post it anyway. I'm afraid you are fighting a losing battle against these two. No amount of facts will change their thinking because they aren't capable of rational thought. They make decisions based on feelings rather than reality. Obamabots and British Peasants aren't trained to consume facts. They are only trained to regurgitate talking points. Whether it's Globull warming or gun control, it doesn't matter. Stop while you're ahead and save yourself a lot of energy.

Ah, more personal attacks. The assumption that I'm an Obama fan, or liberal, because I don't agree shows you have little in your quiver to combat reality.

What part of "we are the only developed nation where gun violence is an issue" isn't reality? Have I missed the data showing that Europe has more gun violence? Until you realize your animal instincts (emotions) are not what's best for a society you won't comprehend this.

AgaetisTakk wrote:

Army Of Truth wrote:BTW, it's obviously YOUR lack of confidence that you cannot profile real facts behind your stance that you parrot from the mainstream media. :))

Again, no amount of fact will dissuade you from your strongly held beliefs. Your assumption that I'm a victim of the media is unscrupulous. The Skeptical Libertarian & Politifact or anything but mainstream. But... since you didn't like what they had to say, you slander and make personal attacks. That my friend is intellectually dishonest

ME slander and make personal attacks? =)) =)) =)) =)) =))

You are the one saying I have "mental health issues". So I agree that you are intellectually dishonest. :ymsmug:

But I have no anger towards you. You still have your freedom to spew hate and lies and ad hominem attacks while abandoning facts. :ymhug:

AgaetisTakk wrote: It took me many years to put aside my biases and realize I needed to stop listening to the talking mouths of corporations and politicians. After years of reasoning, and study, I've came to a new conclusion. I doubt that conclusion matters to you because it defers from your narrative. I learned to finally give up trust to people that have an agenda.

Everyone has an agenda and a narrative, including you. And the information you studied came from corporations, special interests, and politicians.

It appears to me that the incident w/ your nephew has led you to be irrational and biased. Your years of study and reasoning led you down the path you wanted to go.

You came to the conclusion that the gun was the problem in your nephews death. You are probably correct that in that case he would probably still be alive if the gun was not available to him.

However, I would bet that many people who were cleaning up the remains of their loved ones off the walls of Umpqua CC wish that their loved one had a gun and then they would probably still be alive.

AgaetisTakk wrote:

caddis wrote:Army of Truth
I know you probably already know this but I'm going to post it anyway. I'm afraid you are fighting a losing battle against these two. No amount of facts will change their thinking because they aren't capable of rational thought. They make decisions based on feelings rather than reality. Obamabots and British Peasants aren't trained to consume facts. They are only trained to regurgitate talking points. Whether it's Globull warming or gun control, it doesn't matter. Stop while you're ahead and save yourself a lot of energy.

Ah, more personal attacks. The assumption that I'm an Obama fan, or liberal, because I don't agree shows you have little in your quiver to combat reality.

What part of "we are the only developed nation where gun violence is an issue" isn't reality? Have I missed the data showing that Europe has more gun violence? Until you realize your animal instincts (emotions) are not what's best for a society you won't comprehend this.

Sounds good. :YMSMUG:

AgaetisTakk wrote:Until you realize your animal instincts (emotions) are not what's best for a society you won't comprehend this.

Actually, it's you that doesn't realize that our country cannot be ruled by animal instincts and emotionally charged mass shooting events. We believe in the CONSTITUTION and rule of law. That is what is best for society as has been proven time and time again. But I'm sure you don't see that, do you. #:-s

April 17, 2015 - Chicago Uber driver shoots and stops a man who was firing into a crowd. (The park where the attacker opened fire is a gun-free zone.)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


July 24, 2014 - Shooting spree in Darby, PA stopped by a doctor with a gun. (The hospital was a gun-free zone. Fortunately the doctor ignored the policy.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


December 12, 2013 – Clackamass, OR mall killer takes his own life after being confronted by a concealed-carry permit holder. (The mall was posted as a gun-free zone. Fortunately the permit holder ignored the sign.)
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/24/12405148/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


December 9, 2007 – Killer opens fire at parishioners in the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and is stopped when shot by a concealed-carry permit holder. (This was a gun-free zone to the general public, but the pastor wisely allowed select concealed-carry permit holders to carry.)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


October 1, 1997 – Killer stopped at Pearl High School in Mississippi by Assistant Principal with a gun. (The school was a gun- free zone. Luckily the Assistant Principal had his gun in his car.)
http://lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0540.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



A few stories of some of the more well-known attacks that have been stopped by citizens with a gun.

Is anyone aware of any mass shooting being stopped by background checks, waiting periods, registration schemes, gun bans, magazine bans, anti-gun zones, outright gun bans, etc???

If anyone knows of any, I'd sure like to know....

I understand your anger. It's hard to accept facts when it goes against your beliefs. I struggled with this issue for many years.

My love for firearms was passionate until my 3 yr old nephew was killed during an accidental shooting at home. I've seen the struggle with depression my sisters family has gone through coming to term with their mistake. More recently my neighbors 12 yr old was killed accidentally as well. Listening to them talk of cleaning up their childs brain off a wall changes you.

It took me many years to put aside my biases and realize I needed to stop listening to the talking mouths of corporations and politicians. After years of reasoning, and study, I've came to a new conclusion. I doubt that conclusion matters to you because it defers from your narrative. I learned to finally give up trust to people that have an agenda.

So, you are arguing from emotion. Are you admitting that you cannot look at this objectively because of events in your life? You put aside your bias for a whole set of new ones.
Stats on both sides of the argument can be shown and manipulated anyway you want; this should come down to freedom. Why punish people's freedom and liberty because of the irresponsibility of others?
God forbid a thousand times that there is a gun accident and my family. However if there was I would not clamber to take away other peoples rights. Owning a firearm is definitely not for everybody and you do have added risk. But when the hell was it governments job to save us from ourselves? Look where that has gotten us.

As mentioned before with the millions of arms freely accessible in the United States; and with as few deaths that occur with said firearms, it is quite amazing how responsible American gun owners are. Hype an exaggeration are hard things to overcome but......you seem like a good guy a smart guy that should be able to see through the emotional rhetoric; but then again maybe not. The facts and figures you quote just seem like a veneer to your true opinions/feelings/emotions about gun control.

Jason wrote:April 17, 2015 - Chicago Uber driver shoots and stops a man who was firing into a crowd. (The park where the attacker opened fire is a gun-free zone.)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


July 24, 2014 - Shooting spree in Darby, PA stopped by a doctor with a gun. (The hospital was a gun-free zone. Fortunately the doctor ignored the policy.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


December 12, 2013 – Clackamass, OR mall killer takes his own life after being confronted by a concealed-carry permit holder. (The mall was posted as a gun-free zone. Fortunately the permit holder ignored the sign.)
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/24/12405148/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


December 9, 2007 – Killer opens fire at parishioners in the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and is stopped when shot by a concealed-carry permit holder. (This was a gun-free zone to the general public, but the pastor wisely allowed select concealed-carry permit holders to carry.)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


October 1, 1997 – Killer stopped at Pearl High School in Mississippi by Assistant Principal with a gun. (The school was a gun- free zone. Luckily the Assistant Principal had his gun in his car.)
http://lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0540.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



A few stories of some of the more well-known attacks that have been stopped by citizens with a gun.

Is anyone aware of any mass shooting being stopped by background checks, waiting periods, registration schemes, gun bans, magazine bans, anti-gun zones, outright gun bans, etc???

If anyone knows of any, I'd sure like to know....

Imagine how differently 9/11 would have ended if there were armed citizens or pilots on board, and if we profiled like they do in Israel.

markharr wrote:

Jason wrote:April 17, 2015 - Chicago Uber driver shoots and stops a man who was firing into a crowd. (The park where the attacker opened fire is a gun-free zone.)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


July 24, 2014 - Shooting spree in Darby, PA stopped by a doctor with a gun. (The hospital was a gun-free zone. Fortunately the doctor ignored the policy.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


December 12, 2013 – Clackamass, OR mall killer takes his own life after being confronted by a concealed-carry permit holder. (The mall was posted as a gun-free zone. Fortunately the permit holder ignored the sign.)
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/24/12405148/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


December 9, 2007 – Killer opens fire at parishioners in the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and is stopped when shot by a concealed-carry permit holder. (This was a gun-free zone to the general public, but the pastor wisely allowed select concealed-carry permit holders to carry.)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


October 1, 1997 – Killer stopped at Pearl High School in Mississippi by Assistant Principal with a gun. (The school was a gun- free zone. Luckily the Assistant Principal had his gun in his car.)
http://lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0540.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



A few stories of some of the more well-known attacks that have been stopped by citizens with a gun.

Is anyone aware of any mass shooting being stopped by background checks, waiting periods, registration schemes, gun bans, magazine bans, anti-gun zones, outright gun bans, etc???

If anyone knows of any, I'd sure like to know....

Imagine how differently 9/11 would have ended if there were armed citizens or pilots on board, and if we profiled like they do in Israel.

Not to derail this thread but I'm probably gonna derail it here...but I highly doubt it would have mattered....nearly every (if not every single one) defensive system established at that time failed or incurred substantial timing response delays. Whether intentional or accident....I have my opinions...and some day the video in the heavens will make a 100% clear.

Just one strange aspect of the myriad aspects to occur that day....

According to their narrative, on the morning of September 11, four enormous, fuel-laden, lumbering jumbo jets were hijacked by 19 Arab men with box-cutters and zero in-air flight experience. These slow, unmaneuverable planes were then flown for 1 hour and 45 minutes through the most restricted airspace in the world without eliciting a single military intercept. The most sophisticated military in the world, able to strike dime-sized targets from hundreds of miles away with laser-guided missiles, precision radar equipment, and state of the art aircraft capable of flying well over 1,300 mph, could not locate, engage, nor intercept four wandering jumbo jets. A military that has a budget larger than the combined military assets of every other country in the world could not scramble, intercept and engage any of the radically wayward planes. Even Flight 77, which was allowed to fly unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon one full hour after two jets had been flown into the Twin Towers in NYC, failed to elicit the response and intercept from any military jets. Nor, indeed, did flight 93. A plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania field 1 hour and 45 minutes after the first plane was confirmed hijacked.

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_12.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 9/11 official story is a tale of outlandish incompetence. We are led to believe that Al Qaeda successfully evaded a multi-billion-dollar defense establishment including NORAD, standard FAA intercept procedures, US airbases,[1] the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, international intelligence agencies and more, without any significant or effective resistance. While any serious investigation of the 9/11 attacks was blocked by President Bush and Dick Cheney for more than a year,[2] a theory of systematic and incredible incompetence emerged: Al Qaeda got “lucky”. Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission criticized this notion:

“It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?”[3]

What happened to those who “failed”, and what exactly were their “failures”?

Who was responsible for these “failures” and who got promoted?

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... e-and.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is there anyone here who thinks it's possible the official version of events surrouding 911 might be true?

The United States has had a record number of gun sales the last few months. Guess people are worried they soon won't be able to get guns.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crim ... cle/446160" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Israel is going completely the other direction. In Jerusalem, they are telling residents to carry their weapons as a deterrent.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 81,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Robin Hood wrote:Is there anyone here who thinks it's possible the official version of events surrouding 911 might be true?

Anyone who actually believes the official 9/11 government conspiracy theory will believe anything the government tells them. /:)

The data from the so called right wing site seems to be counting just gun crimes. Should compare well with gun crimes from the US.

Sunain wrote:The United States has had a record number of gun sales the last few months. Guess people are worried they soon won't be able to get guns.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crim ... cle/446160" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Israel is going completely the other direction. In Jerusalem, they are telling residents to carry their weapons as a deterrent.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 81,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Worried they won't be able to get them anymore??? OR...
Worried they will soon need them???

There's already more firearms than people in this country (including children)...for 99.99% of folks...can only fire one at a time in any sort of effective manner. This is clearly stockpiling...why and for what?

Also...nearly any machine shop in the country can kick out firearms at an unbelievable rate if needed. And with new 3D machines with such capabilities working their way down to household level...it won't be long until the firearms manufacturering will be completely unregulated. You can currently buy 80% AR lowers and finish at home for legal unserialized weapon system. Also outfit that sells machine tool for that for just over a grand.

So why the intentional creation of propaganda and subsequent hysteria that they are going to take firearms away??? And to what end???

Army Of Truth wrote:

Robin Hood wrote:Is there anyone here who thinks it's possible the official version of events surrouding 911 might be true?

Anyone who actually believes the official 9/11 government conspiracy theory will believe anything the government tells them. /:)

It certainly looks fishy to me.
Too many things just don't resonate.

I was working at the time of the incident and I listened to the news as it came through live on BBC radio. At one point they announced that the US air force had shot down a hijacked plane over Pennsylvania. A few minutes later they confirmed this.
It was then never mentioned again.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


What is the "well regulated militia?"

to me that looks like the Second Amendment, gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, and that they would be part of a "well regulated Militia".

The solution here guys is simple.

Do not grab all the guns. You wouldn't hope to do so especially in the West.

Do not loosen the manner in which you can obtain weapons.

For me the OBVIOUS solution is to keep in mind the Well Regulated Militia.

Have the kids of high school or university age have an option of spending one summer at a military base, where they will learn survivalist skills, how to fire some basic weaponry, drive basic vehicles, and cook. Having passed the necessary certifications, the person could get out of there with the weapons that they used free of charge. A drivers license could be provided also with the vehicles...

Showing the certification would be enough to buy weaponry afterwards, at least the weaponry that you were certified in.

For those of working age, have them go two weekends a month for one year or one weekend a month for two years. The same certifications would apply.

Those that don't want to get involved, would be outside the realm of a "well regulated militia" and would have three years to turn in their weapons or apply for the courses mentioned above.

I see nothing anticonstitutional about this.

samizdat wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


What is the "well regulated militia?"

to me that looks like the Second Amendment, gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, and that they would be part of a "well regulated Militia".

The solution here guys is simple.

Do not grab all the guns. You wouldn't hope to do so especially in the West.

Do not loosen the manner in which you can obtain weapons.

For me the OBVIOUS solution is to keep in mind the Well Regulated Militia.

Have the kids of high school or university age have an option of spending one summer at a military base, where they will learn survivalist skills, how to fire some basic weaponry, drive basic vehicles, and cook. Having passed the necessary certifications, the person could get out of there with the weapons that they used free of charge. A drivers license could be provided also with the vehicles...

Showing the certification would be enough to buy weaponry afterwards, at least the weaponry that you were certified in.

For those of working age, have them go two weekends a month for one year or one weekend a month for two years. The same certifications would apply.

Those that don't want to get involved, would be outside the realm of a "well regulated militia" and would have three years to turn in their weapons or apply for the courses mentioned above.

I see nothing anticonstitutional about this.

I appreciate you taking the time to think and ponder the issue.

The problem is "shall not be infringed". Your solution most definately infringes.

Also.. "well-regulated" does not mean certified by the government. The very act of government certification is an infringement.

I think your interpretation of what this amendment means is about 180 degrees different than what it meant at the founding.

Serragon wrote:

samizdat wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


What is the "well regulated militia?"

to me that looks like the Second Amendment, gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, and that they would be part of a "well regulated Militia".

The solution here guys is simple.

Do not grab all the guns. You wouldn't hope to do so especially in the West.

Do not loosen the manner in which you can obtain weapons.

For me the OBVIOUS solution is to keep in mind the Well Regulated Militia.

Have the kids of high school or university age have an option of spending one summer at a military base, where they will learn survivalist skills, how to fire some basic weaponry, drive basic vehicles, and cook. Having passed the necessary certifications, the person could get out of there with the weapons that they used free of charge. A drivers license could be provided also with the vehicles...

Showing the certification would be enough to buy weaponry afterwards, at least the weaponry that you were certified in.

For those of working age, have them go two weekends a month for one year or one weekend a month for two years. The same certifications would apply.

Those that don't want to get involved, would be outside the realm of a "well regulated militia" and would have three years to turn in their weapons or apply for the courses mentioned above.

I see nothing anticonstitutional about this.

I appreciate you taking the time to think and ponder the issue.

The problem is "shall not be infringed". Your solution most definately infringes.

Also.. "well-regulated" does not mean certified by the government. The very act of government certification is an infringement.

I think your interpretation of what this amendment means is about 180 degrees different than what it meant at the founding.

I really don't see it as much of an infringement. Well regulated looks more like well organized. The far left would be saying that that is the army and the National Guard, when in the original Constitution that most definitely was NOT the case.

The idea of a standing army was repugnant to the Founders for this very reason; because it could then be interpreted by future generations that only they were the "well regulated militia" that was being talked about there. Such was the case in forbidding the sale of guns and ammo to slaves before the Civil War and a Reconstruction era SCOTUS decision. This changed with the Heller decision that was recently issued by SCOTUS.

With this idea, you could organize a militia with a lot of power, and it would be perfectly organized (or well-regulated). There wouldn't be any need for background checks with the government certification given at the military base upon completion of the course. The certification would speak for itself. You consider it an infringement. But the background check phase is even more of an infringement as that could take weeks or months under the current system depending on where you live.

Serragon wrote:

samizdat wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


What is the "well regulated militia?"

to me that looks like the Second Amendment, gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, and that they would be part of a "well regulated Militia".

The solution here guys is simple.

Do not grab all the guns. You wouldn't hope to do so especially in the West.

Do not loosen the manner in which you can obtain weapons.

For me the OBVIOUS solution is to keep in mind the Well Regulated Militia.

Have the kids of high school or university age have an option of spending one summer at a military base, where they will learn survivalist skills, how to fire some basic weaponry, drive basic vehicles, and cook. Having passed the necessary certifications, the person could get out of there with the weapons that they used free of charge. A drivers license could be provided also with the vehicles...

Showing the certification would be enough to buy weaponry afterwards, at least the weaponry that you were certified in.

For those of working age, have them go two weekends a month for one year or one weekend a month for two years. The same certifications would apply.

Those that don't want to get involved, would be outside the realm of a "well regulated militia" and would have three years to turn in their weapons or apply for the courses mentioned above.

I see nothing anticonstitutional about this.

I appreciate you taking the time to think and ponder the issue.

The problem is "shall not be infringed". Your solution most definately infringes.

Also.. "well-regulated" does not mean certified by the government. The very act of government certification is an infringement.

I think your interpretation of what this amendment means is about 180 degrees different than what it meant at the founding.

I love the constitution. I think it's great. But it's not the end all be all. As you can see it can and is interpreted in different ways.

Owning the means to protect ones person, and property is a human right. No government or constitution grants our rights.

Someone in gun toting Texas, Manchester England, or North Korea has the right to own a firearm. God gave it to them.

Our satanic governments say otherwise.