Larry Warner

So we agree as to why it is stupid? It is so far off the charts it isn't even realisti

Such a policy would be just another end around proposal towards gun control through increased cost. It would add hundreds per gun to the cost of ownership, and the policy cost would no doubt be higher on weapons construed as "assault", thus limiting the average citizen's availability to own one.

Yes, but he is also the assistant pastor at my church and my cousin. He simply wanted to know where to get a good deal on a new Kimber.

There is no need to be R.M. I own 48 guns. Twelve of them are pistols, four of them are what people would classify as assault weapons. One of the pistols is used for hunting big game, and three are .22's. The remaining 32 guns are what would be classified as hunting and sporting weapons. I am an extremely law abiding citizen. I have many, many friends that are in the same boat as me as far as enjoying shooting and hunting using all types of weapons. You have nothing to fear from me, but there are many people that would like to take what you have, or harm someone for no reason. A friend of mine that doesn't have his concealed carry was just robbed at gunpoint when the bars were closing on Bardstown road in Louisville last year. It is a shame that you would consider someone like me more of a threat than a common criminal. BTW, I highly doubt I am the only one who fits this bill on this site.

I have 15, seventeen, and thirty round mags for several of my handguns. Believe me, most 9mm come stock with a 15 round mag or higher.

Then we disagree.

Because I believe it is my right to keep and bear arms. The weapons that the uninformed deem as assault weapons are nothing more than tactically superior arms. Therefore, I should be allowed to have them. Also, I don't plan to have to reload during a gunfight because tactically ignorant sections of our society decided that they didn't want me to have more than ten rounds in my weapon. I can assure you, a criminal that I am protecting myself from will likely have more than ten rounds in his or her mag, if they have a mag fed weapon.

I agree, but he should't be hindering the ability of others to provide themselves the same protection. That is the point.

Do you really believe he didn't have armed protection much earlier in his career?

- AWB and limit to 10 round magazines This is the only thing that is completely unacceptable IMO.

Sure, but I find it very hypocrytical for someone to try and refuse the availability for armed protection to others, when they use it for themselves and their families. BTW, I am sure Obama was using armed protection long before he was POTUS.

No, but if I was wealthy enough I would be able to provide training and weapons to produce a security force comprable to the President's, not including the military. However, that would be impossible if the right to own those weapons were taken away. Why should't a citizen with the available resources be allowed to protect themselves and their families in a comprable manor?

Certainly, but that is training that I could choose to obtain if I so wished. It is available all over this country for the right price. Point being, if you take away my ability to have the same weapons, you take away my ability to provide equal protection.

So your saying we are less free if we have an armed presence in our school, but we shouldn't be free to arm ourselves in certain areas? What is your philosophy on freedom? Should we have a reasonable safety against armed criminals in our everyday lives? Should our children have the freedom of attending schools in a protected environment? What methods do you believe work best in stopping an armed shooter?

Once again, there is a major difference between urban and rural law enforcement on this issue, much the same as the differences in urban and rural political views across this country.

No, but I can guarantee that many gun owners will not allow their weapons to be taken peacefully, and many members of law enforcement will refuse to enforce those laws. I would call that civil unrest.

No, there are four other justices that disagreed with him. He has been a conservative justice for most of his career. He was nominated by Reagan. However, he has always been midline on the issue of gun control. He is also very pro executive power, which many jusitces have historically disagreed with. Of course there is someone that can disagree with a justice, including other justices.

Like what? You would rather our children and teachers be kept in a defenseless position? What are the negatives?

Average casualties during mass shootings in the U.S. indicate that if an armed responder is on sight, the casualties average just over two. If armed responders have to be called to the scene, the casualties have averaged over 14. What more convincing do you need?

That is a decision that was weighed 5-4. There is no clear cut stand on that issue in this country. It is something that our Supreme Court Justices are even completely split. Nothing will make it clear short of a new amendment, which will never have the necessary backing. There are many citizens in this country that have never broken a law that will instantly become criminals if section in our government try to take away their firearms. I don't know if the left understands this or not, but they are approaching a state of civil unrest. Many citizens do not and will not honor anyone's right to do this.

There are already armed school resource officers in our public schools. Why are you opposed? What is the concern, and does it supercede the safety of students attending school, and the teachers working in the buildings?

I agree that this opinion seems to fit your's well in this 5-4 decision. I also believe that opinion was overturned by another case in 2009 in DC and you are now allowed to own a handgun in DC limits. It was overturned due to it being found Unconstititional to take that right away completely, so you are now allowed to own a handgun, but it requires over $350 of licenses and fees. Basically, they are still enforcing gun control through heightened prices. It is doing really well for their violent crime rate, much like Chicago.

Certainly there is a difference, but why shouldn't both situations call for armed personell?

No, but I have many of the same weapons they use.

What is sad is that anyone would think that methods of protection work differently for different people. Is a building more or less safe with armed personnell protecting it? Many on the left seem to think less for the common man, but not for themselves. Also, I have every right to protect my loved ones with the same means that he uses to protect his. However, it seems that he would like to take that right away from me.