Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/22/06 08:09 PM, Shifty55 wrote: Give me a sec.

"Another change from Stoner's orginal design was to increase the rifling twist rate in the barrel from one in fourteen inches to one in twelve. This was intended to improve the ballistic properties of the rifle in arctic conditions; however, many believe that it decreased the lethality of the round. The prevaling theory was that the increased spin rate of the projectile reduced the projectile's tumbling once it entered a body. (This theory has since been debunked as no rifling twist is fast enough to adequately stabilize a projectile once it hits flesh.)" Read around that section, ill look for more spacific info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

At 7/22/06 08:09 PM, Shifty55 wrote: Give me a sec.

"Both the M193 and newer M855 (SS109) bullets routinely fragment when striking soft tissue. When fired from less than 100 meters, these bullets will penetrate 100 mm (4 in) into body tissue, before yawing 90 to 180 degrees. Fragmentation occurs when lateral forces on the bullet cause it to break in half. This occurs at the weak cannelure, which is a groove allowing the bullet casing to be sealed to the copper jacket. The rear section of the 5.56 mm bullet will then fragment into numerous tiny pieces, causing increased damage to surrounding tissue. The necessary velocity for reliable fragmentation is roughly 823 meters (2,700 feet) per second." That's what i was looking for. But what do you expect, the millitary wants guns that kill not maim. (I'm going into the millitary after college).

Okay, I can sum up this whole thing in one sentence.

The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED .

And now a few sentences explaining that.

This is THE MOST clear and understandable sentence in the entire constitution. It literally states that there shall not be any restrictions of any kind upon guns. PERIOD.

Whether this is a good law is another story...but you get the idea.

I have no problem with people owning guns whatsoever, they should just go through screening first to make sure they're mentally stable to do so, and more harsh gun selling laws of that sort.

At 7/22/06 08:27 PM, osamahunter1 wrote: Okay, I can sum up this whole thing in one sentence.

The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED .

And now a few sentences explaining that.

Ah, yeah, the all important "ignorance of the WELL REGULATED milita" that so many pro-gunners have.

This is THE MOST clear and understandable sentence in the entire constitution.

Not really. Ever heard of US v. Miller? How about Silveira v. Lockyer?

It literally states that there shall not be any restrictions of any kind upon guns. PERIOD.

Yeah...uh, no. The Supreme Court HAS INTERPRETED IT TO THE CONTRARY, and whatever they say is the LEGAL interperetation that MATTERS. No other opinion is legally justified.

FTW.

At 7/22/06 08:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/22/06 08:27 PM, osamahunter1 wrote:

Ah, yeah, the all important "ignorance of the WELL REGULATED milita" that so many pro-gunners have.

So if we're going to strictly interpret Amendment 2, why not provide the same justice the the remaining 9?

Yeah...uh, no. The Supreme Court HAS INTERPRETED IT TO THE CONTRARY, and whatever they say is the LEGAL interperetation that MATTERS. No other opinion is legally justified.

Silveira hasn't made it to the High Court yet, and as I said in the other thread, the 9th Circuit has a great history of decisions being overruled.

The whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing is getting old. Guns don't kill people, Guns make people more efficient at killing people.

Guns don't kill people,
Rappers do,
I'm a fucking rapper,
And i want to kill you!

Goldie Lookin' Chain.

At 7/23/06 12:06 AM, Proud_American wrote: The whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing is getting old. Guns don't kill people, Guns make people more efficient at killing people.

And if you're killing people, gun rights supporters aren't going to rally behind you. They're responsible, legal, licensed gun owners who don't cheer the misuse of weapons any more than a soldier would cheer one of his partners going on a murder spree during furlough.

At 7/22/06 12:38 PM, DarthTomato wrote: i can, can you? personally i have my guns so i can kill intruders and hunt for squirrels in my back yard. if someone broke into your house, could you defend yourself? or would you have to lock yourself in a room and dial 911 and hope to god the cops arrive before the criminal finds you? Personally, I'm not that great of a risk taker if i can avoid it. I can control my own weapons, but I can't control the criminal. i would rather HIS brains and blood splattered on my floor than my own brains and blood.

um. Ok. So, what I said had nothing to do with any of this. I merely stated that guns are designed to kill. A fact you yourself reiterate in your 'response'.

You are overstepping the bounds of what I said. Is this not the truth? If it is then the person to whom the response was directed was wrong. Damn wrong.

I have not stated anything on this subject other than 'guns are meant to kill'. You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. Knock it the fuck off.

Yet another person that will have me reiterating the obvious.

Shit happens. I'm not going to let what I can't control dictate how I live. But, for those that do I might suggest pepper spray.

criminals have guns, theres no disputing that, and they're not like criminals on tv, they will most likely kill you so you can't identify them, i would!

Glad to hear that neither morality, nor a fear of god wouldn't stop you from killing. Are you a criminal? Are you in law enforcement? Are you a psychologist? You have so much insight into the criminal mind I was just wondering where you picked it up.

Wow, I really though this was obvious...

At 7/22/06 04:43 PM, MindControlFun wrote: No shit. But, that is a widespread current use of guns. If guns today are banned today because of the problems of yesterday....

It is 'a use'. Is it the purpose? I use screwdrivers sometimes to open pain cans. And you completely lost me on the problems of yesterday? What the hell does that have to do with what I said?

Even if you hit it. The purpose of the higher power, longer bullet, rifling, et cetera is for accuracy. Ever fired a smoothbore musket with a ball bullet? I have, and it's a lot less accurate than the stuff we have now.

No. The purpose is still 'to kill'. Higher power, accuracy, etc. is to enhance the ablility of the bullet to do it's job. Accuracy is not the purpose. An powerful drill is still made to make holes, it is not made just to 'be powerful'.

Coca-cola was originally designed to be a medicine.

I fail to see the comparison.

That's not called "dangers of guns", that's called "irresponsibility", or "Darwin awards"

And from waaaay out in left field. What do you think I meant? This hypothetical was made to show you how fucking dumb you'd have to be to not understand the consequences of firing a gun. And you'd have to be just as stupid today to feel that people buy guns today with the sole intention of ever firing at targets.

DarthTomato wrote in his 'conspiracy theory about democrats' post:

guns are not necessarily harmful, yes they were made to harm and kill, but like a hammer cannot drive nails without someone slamming the head on the nail, a gun cannot harm someone unless someone pulls the trigger with a bullet in the chamber... or unless they drop the guns and it goes off.

soooo, you agree with me then? F*** dude, you're an idiot.

yes they were made to harm and kill

c'mon. WTF? What goes on in your head?

i'm pretty sure most gun violence is by people that bought guns illegaly or stole them.

At 7/23/06 05:06 AM, Occluded wrote:

Glad to hear that neither morality, nor a fear of god wouldn't stop you from killing. Are you a criminal? Are you in law enforcement? Are you a psychologist? You have so much insight into the criminal mind I was just wondering where you picked it up.

i took 4 years of psychology classes in highschool, of course the criminal mind depends on the criminal, some are downright stupid, they commit crimes because they don't see an alternative or even find it fun to harm others and steal/destroy their stuff. some criminals are incredibly intelligent, like the unibomber and many serial killers.

also, if i lacked the morality and fear of god to break into people's houses and steal their stuff, why should i care enough to spare their lives? its all about survival, if they make a report and describe you, then the cops will know what to look for, if you kill them, they're silenced forever.

At 7/23/06 05:43 AM, Occluded wrote:

soooo, you agree with me then? F*** dude, you're an idiot.

you lack insight. this is distubing.

yes they were made to harm and kill

c'mon. WTF? What goes on in your head?

well, facts ARE facts afterall, just like candy is meant to be a treat for kids. and if i told you what goes on in my head, you wouldn't believe me anyway.

At 7/23/06 12:15 AM, Der_Pandar wrote:

And if you're killing people, gun rights supporters aren't going to rally behind you. They're responsible, legal, licensed gun owners who don't cheer the misuse of weapons any more than a soldier would cheer one of his partners going on a murder spree during furlough.

Pandar-

That's quite true. I don't know MANY gun owners, but I know a few. They're law abiding people who like to (a.) shoot at a range and (b.) go hunting. They don't keep weapons for self protection. They lock them up in a huge safe. It's just kind of silly to me how many peple expect to defend themselves with guns.

At 7/23/06 11:37 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It's just kind of silly to me how many peple expect to defend themselves with guns.

some people just like to be prepared.

At 7/22/06 08:27 PM, osamahunter1 wrote: Ah, yeah, the all important "ignorance of the WELL REGULATED milita" that so many pro-gunners have.

"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."

Nowhere does that state that gun ownership was intended exclusively for use by militia. The militia and protection of the State are the reason for gun ownership, but that doesn't mean that the framers intended the amendment to preclude private ownership of arms.

At 7/23/06 12:05 AM, Der_Pandar wrote: So if we're going to strictly interpret Amendment 2, why not provide the same justice the the remaining 9?

Suits me just fine. I think the sixth needs some strict-constructionist defense. And the ninth, too, while we're at it.

At 7/23/06 11:23 AM, DarthTomato wrote:

At 7/23/06 05:06 AM, Occluded wrote:

i took 4 years of psychology classes in highschool, of course the criminal mind depends on the criminal, some are downright stupid, they commit crimes because they don't see an alternative or even find it fun to harm others and steal/destroy their stuff. some criminals are incredibly intelligent, like the unibomber and many serial killers.

So. No. You don't. No more than anyone else. Good. Now what you say will have to be rationalized.

Again with the way out in left field. Stating what little you know as if it's insight.

also, if i lacked the morality and fear of god to break into people's houses and steal their stuff, why should i care enough to spare their lives? its all about survival, if they make a report and describe you, then the cops will know what to look for, if you kill them, they're silenced forever.

Becuase there is a difference between stealing and killing. A big one. Just becuase someone breaks the law does not mean they have lost all sense of morality.

At 7/23/06 05:43 AM, Occluded wrote:

you lack insight. this is distubing.

So you disagree?

well, facts ARE facts afterall, just like candy is meant to be a treat for kids. and if i told you what goes on in my head, you wouldn't believe me anyway.

Wait, so you agree.

Seriously man. If you want to read into what I say more than is appearant, that is your problem. I'm not going to return the favor because... well... it's fucking dumb.

Here's the thing. I'll say what I mean. Then you say what you mean. And we will both only use what was said to make assumptions about what was meant. And then we won't get the advantage of creating out of thin air flaws in each others arguements.

Guns are designed to kill. So are cigarettes.

However, the modern usage of guns has expanded on the original reasoning to include things from as wide a range as range, target and skeet shooting to an actual Olympic sport, as well as sport and food hunting.

At 7/23/06 03:48 PM, Der_Pandar wrote: Guns are designed to kill. So are cigarettes.

However, the modern usage of guns has expanded on the original reasoning to include things from as wide a range as range, target and skeet shooting to an actual Olympic sport, as well as sport and food hunting.

Cigarettes are designed to sell, and continue selling, they would prefer they lived longer so they would consume more and thus profit.

At 7/23/06 06:36 PM, Shifty55 wrote: Cigarettes are designed to sell, and continue selling, they would prefer they lived longer so they would consume more and thus profit.

...and in some twisted way you're proving his point.

At 7/14/06 12:28 AM, Der_Pandar wrote:
But I wonder about this on a Constitutional level, thanks to an astute observation by Proteas. I wonder why the Constitution is viewed as a living document by those who seek to use it to defend the detainees at Guantanamo, or a woman's right to choose,

a woman's right to choose is different. It's biologically and religiously based while guns are morally based.

or the rights of gays to marry,

the question of guns is different from gay marriage because there is no safety hazard involving gay marriage, only biblical values.

but the 2nd Amendment is denied the same living status. It is always very strictly interpreted by those who seek to limit the sale and possession of guns by legal gun owners. It's a horrible hypocrisy that ought not be overlooked, and ought to be justified by anyone who claims the 2nd Amendment no longer applies.

The second amendment is probably the most difficult to interpret because of its lack of specificty. If you simply said, "Right to bear arms" you would include any type of ammunition, biological, nuclear weapons. We need to be able to limit this somehow. So for that we add in the specificty ourselves. Especially when it comes to crime, outlawing weapons with no protection value like handguns is a must.

The thing is, a lot of people own guns. It's a growth industry. Montana has about a million people, give or take 150,000. It also has over six million guns registered to loving owners. What is the rate of gun crime in the state of Montana? Minimal. Why?

I understand your thinking, but you kind of miss your own point because the reason gun crime is so slow is because there are only about a million people in Montana. Therefore, it's a struggle for someone to find a person to kill or rob since neighbors there literally live miles apart from one another. Also, notice how many guns are registered. That high amount is because gun laws are more lax in Montana because of the popularity of hunting. I don't really think everyh one of those 6 million guns are used for hunting or protection.

Because, as much as some love to vilify the owners of guns, those who have taken the time to learn to use them, apply for permits, take training courses and spend hard-earned money on a fire arm are not very likely to immediately go off on a shooting spree.

Well, actually that's not that true. Most people who actually plan to kill someone take courses or learn to be good at shooting some other way. That's why people die from gunfire, criminals already know how to use them.

Why is it that critics of gun rights seem to think that Americans are too stupid to understand how to properly use a weapon?
Do we ban driving automobiles because some irresponsible person gets drunk behind the wheel and slams into an oncoming car?

But most states are now raising the requirements for driver's licenses to age 18 because automobile accidents are the #1 killer of 16-25 year olds. Also, that's an unfair comparison. Cars are methods of transportation and the fuel they use, the cars themselves, are some of the most important parts of efficient tranportation around the country. We have highways that run from coast to coast that have cost us multi-billions. Guns, on the other hand are not an important economic factor in comparsion to automobiles.

No. Does the entire staff of a company get fired when one mid-level employee fouls up?

the company does get sued however, which is why they fire the employee in the first place.

No. So why is it that gun rights critics are so ready to jump on the legal gun owners for the crimes of those who most likely obtained their weapons illegally?

Because the U.S imports these guns, allow illegal supplies to be transported (much like drugs across the borders*) and don't have enough security to make sure criminals themselves don't get their hands on weapons.

Face it: the vast majority of gun owners do not go on to commit crimes.

Well, at least not gun crimes.
Face it: the vast majority of legal gun owners don't live in hunting regions. They live in cities such as Manhatten and Chicago. They go to places to Montana in order to obtain the weapon. They don't intend to use it for bad. They intend to protect their families. However, there is no place safe to keep guns in the projects of these big cities because their houses get raided all the time. That's how a lot of criminals get their hands on a gun.

It pains me to think some people still don't get it.

I get it enough to know that the conservatives who want guns to stay legal are indeed the legal gun owners of rural countryside parts like Montana. And the libertarians. But as we no from any good political book, the happy ending comes with the libertarians leaving to Canada. But they have to understand that their passions for hunting and protecting their families with firearms also puts guns in many other people's hands. Think about it.

The importation of guns leads to people in rural and urban neigborhoods receiving guns for various purposes. The urban streets is where they get their guns. From their legal owners or legal gun owners turned gun dealer (more likely scenario) This puts many lives at risk. So while your protecting you family and you remain safe in rural Montana where you hunt rabbits with a rifle and protect your families, remember you are also part of the reason criminals get guns, to fight off those who protect themselves. Protecting your own family is a moral and just thing that any person with common sense would do. However, when you place the lives of others in harms way while you protect your family....

It's a pretty damn selfish thing for you not to find some other way to live.

At 7/23/06 01:18 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

Nowhere does that state that gun ownership was intended exclusively for use by militia.

US v. Miller does, though. And, naturally, the Supreme Court is the final Constitutional ARBITER. So, your thoughts and ideas are not constitutionally accurate.

At 7/23/06 12:15 PM, DarthTomato wrote:

At 7/23/06 11:37 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It's just kind of silly to me how many peple expect to defend themselves with guns.

some people just like to be prepared.

Prepared? Yeah, no.

1. Any civillian who expects to fight off an oppressive government is deluded. The British Home Guard auxiliary was only intended to hold off the Nazis for a few weeks at most, and THEY were specially prepared. How would a bunch of hicks with rifles do? Not so well against a few armed US soldiers.

2. "For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every
self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related
shootings." Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the
home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267.

And that's ALL.

HighlyIllogical wrote:

2. "For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every
self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related
shootings." Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the
home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267.

That's exactly the kind of thing I was searching for in my above argument... nice one. thx

At 7/23/06 08:00 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 7/14/06 12:28 AM, Der_Pandar wrote:
But I wonder about this on a Constitutional level, thanks to an astute observation by Proteas. I wonder why the Constitution is viewed as a living document by those who seek to use it to defend the detainees at Guantanamo, or a woman's right to choose,

a woman's right to choose is different. It's biologically and religiously based while guns are morally based.

And it is right to legislate morality in this case, but not in the case of abortion or gay marriage? That still doesn't explain why Amendment 2 is so strictly interpreted by liberal groups while they allow the broadest of interpretations of the other 9.

but the 2nd Amendment is denied the same living status. It is always very strictly interpreted by those who seek to limit the sale and possession of guns by legal gun owners. It's a horrible hypocrisy that ought not be overlooked, and ought to be justified by anyone who claims the 2nd Amendment no longer applies.

The second amendment is probably the most difficult to interpret because of its lack of specificty. If you simply said, "Right to bear arms" you would include any type of ammunition, biological, nuclear weapons.

It says it very clearly, "The right to bear arms," short for sidearms such as rifles and pistols.

We need to be able to limit this somehow. So for that we add in the specificty ourselves. Especially when it comes to crime, outlawing weapons with no protection value like handguns is a must.

No protection value to a handgun? What?

Because, as much as some love to vilify the owners of guns, those who have taken the time to learn to use them, apply for permits, take training courses and spend hard-earned money on a fire arm are not very likely to immediately go off on a shooting spree.

Well, actually that's not that true. Most people who actually plan to kill someone take courses or learn to be good at shooting some other way. That's why people die from gunfire, criminals already know how to use them.

Any source for this, or are you just spewing it out your ass?

Why is it that critics of gun rights seem to think that Americans are too stupid to understand how to properly use a weapon?
Do we ban driving automobiles because some irresponsible person gets drunk behind the wheel and slams into an oncoming car?

But most states are now raising the requirements for driver's licenses to age 18 because automobile accidents are the #1 killer of 16-25 year olds.

Conveniently, age 18 is when you can legally own a rifle.

No. So why is it that gun rights critics are so ready to jump on the legal gun owners for the crimes of those who most likely obtained their weapons illegally?

Because the U.S imports these guns

Smith and Wesson imports its guns? Remington imports its guns? Winchester imports its guns? And here I thought these were American industries.

Face it: the vast majority of gun owners do not go on to commit crimes.

Well, at least not gun crimes.
Face it: the vast majority of legal gun owners don't live in hunting regions. They live in cities such as Manhatten and Chicago.

Got a source for that?

They go to places to Montana in order to obtain the weapon. They don't intend to use it for bad. They intend to protect their families. However, there is no place safe to keep guns in the projects of these big cities because their houses get raided all the time. That's how a lot of criminals get their hands on a gun.

And that?

I get it enough to know that the conservatives who want guns to stay legal are indeed the legal gun owners of rural countryside parts like Montana. And the libertarians.

And, you know, Democrats.

But they have to understand that their passions for hunting and protecting their families with firearms also puts guns in many other people's hands. Think about it.

If they legally own the gun and then commit a crime with it, they go to jail and don't get to own guns anymore. Restricting an entire nation because of the misguided actions of one is collective punishment of the worst form.

The importation of guns leads to people in rural and urban neigborhoods receiving guns for various purposes. The urban streets is where they get their guns. From their legal owners or legal gun owners turned gun dealer (more likely scenario)

LOL I WANT 2 SELL MY GUNZ NOW

This puts many lives at risk. So while your protecting you family and you remain safe in rural Montana where you hunt rabbits with a rifle and protect your families, remember you are also part of the reason criminals get guns, to fight off those who protect themselves.

I actually live on one of the most populated areas in the country, about 20 minutes south of Washington D.C., despite your attempts to label gun owners as backwoods hicks.

No problem.

A few handy sites for anti-gunners:

BradyCampaign.org
VPC.org
And for a laugh- NRA.org
As well as http://www.nra-kkk.org/

At 7/23/06 08:06 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

1. Any civillian who expects to fight off an oppressive government is deluded. The British Home Guard auxiliary was only intended to hold off the Nazis for a few weeks at most, and THEY were specially prepared. How would a bunch of hicks with rifles do? Not so well against a few armed US soldiers.

Hey, that's what the British said.

2. "For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every
self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related
shootings."

And I wonder how many of those were committed by registered, legal gun owners.

At 7/23/06 08:12 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:00 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 7/14/06 12:28 AM, Der_Pandar wrote:

And it is right to legislate morality in this case, but not in the case of abortion or gay marriage? That still doesn't explain why Amendment 2 is so strictly interpreted by liberal groups while they allow the broadest of interpretations of the other 9.

but the 2nd Amendment is denied the same living status. It is always very strictly interpreted by those who seek to limit the sale and possession of guns by legal gun owners. It's a horrible hypocrisy that ought not be overlooked, and ought to be justified by anyone who claims the 2nd Amendment no longer applies.

The second amendment is probably the most difficult to interpret because of its lack of specificty. If you simply said, "Right to bear arms" you would include any type of ammunition, biological, nuclear weapons.

It says it very clearly, "The right to bear arms," short for sidearms such as rifles and pistols.

We need to be able to limit this somehow. So for that we add in the specificty ourselves. Especially when it comes to crime, outlawing weapons with no protection value like handguns is a must.

No protection value to a handgun? What?

Because, as much as some love to vilify the owners of guns, those who have taken the time to learn to use them, apply for permits, take training courses and spend hard-earned money on a fire arm are not very likely to immediately go off on a shooting spree.

Well, actually that's not that true. Most people who actually plan to kill someone take courses or learn to be good at shooting some other way. That's why people die from gunfire, criminals already know how to use them.

Any source for this, or are you just spewing it out your ass?

Why is it that critics of gun rights seem to think that Americans are too stupid to understand how to properly use a weapon?
Do we ban driving automobiles because some irresponsible person gets drunk behind the wheel and slams into an oncoming car?

Conveniently, age 18 is when you can legally own a rifle.

Don't see the relevance because that's also the age that you're not a minor anymore and are therefore subject to the death penalty, joining the army, legally smoking cigarrettes, driving, owning a rifle, people go off to college, yadayadayada, it's the age of responsibility being thrust upon you... Just knowledge from me and my friends personal experiences. It's like driving, drugs, and alcohol. Just cuz the law says doesn't mean it's followed. This goes especially for hunting where the probability of you getting caught by law enforcment, park rangers, or other is drastically reduced. Five of my friends have been going to Montana to hunt since they were 10 every summer. I don't know how old you have to be to get a permit, but that's definitely never been an issue for them since there is not enough law enforcement to watch their every move.

Smith and Wesson imports its guns? Remington imports its guns? Winchester imports its guns? And here I thought these were American industries.

Save the outsourcing arguments for a different thread.

Got a source for that?

point conceded since I don't care enough at the moment to go beyond personal experience

And that?

Point conceded here as well. sry, got lost in my rant. I changed my argument below which I will look for a source that I know exists right now.

If they legally own the gun and then commit a crime with it, they go to jail and don't get to own guns anymore.

That's frighteningly inaccurate Im afraid. Many cases in Chicago go cold because guns are traced back to owners, not the actual killers.

Restricting an entire nation because of the misguided actions of one is collective punishment of the worst form.

If the punishment is the saved life of another human being than I accept it. I'm not entirely against guns, they're are exhilerating to watch in movies because we know they're real life threats. I'm not sure about the inner working of achieving hunting licenses, but for the love of god I hope it's a difficult procedure that has lots of security protocol behind it. My main point is, is I don't think ANYONE besides military, law enforcement, and other governmental bodies should have the right to own guns if they first don't have a well-deserved hunting license. It would make me belive a person's intent more.

LOL I WANT 2 SELL MY GUNZ NOW

it's actually very lucrative because the law states that the illegal gun dealer is not responsible for any gun violence carried out by the new owner. There is a heavy fine believe it. And jail time for criminal dealing. But in reality it's a very good way of making a good profit without showing "1st degree murder" on their background check.

I actually live on one of the most populated areas in the country, about 20 minutes south of Washington D.C., despite your attempts to label gun owners as backwoods hicks.

I wasn't using the word "you" in actually describing you since of course I have no idea who you are. I live in downtown Chicago. The third most populated city in the country. And I'm not labeling gun owners as backwoods hick. I'm labeling the majority of hunters as backwoods hicks because most of them already live in the place where they hunt.