We lived in a no gun law society and it worked out pretty well. Only after the unconstitutional gun laws were created did criminals find it easier to victimize people they knew couldn't have one.

Also, it's not "pro-gunner", it's pro-freedom. Nobody is saying everyone must own a gun, just that you can't infringe on our right to own one of them or a million of them. Your desires are less important than our rights.

Db, actually, we can and we do, all the time. Ringer's Paradox, "A freedom restricted is a freedom preserved," gives us to expect there will be some circumscribing somewhere.

The varied iterations of liberalized private concealed carry, ranging from Vermont's no-permit-required to concealed carry license documents along with full faith and credit provisions, have all produced precipitous, permanent decline in violent crime. There seem to be many ways to make this work.

In the end the "pro-gunners" you speak of are the effectual, the genuine anti-crime and anti-genocide social force. In the former, the frankly stupid criminal is suppressed; in the latter, criminal action by the state becomes impractical -- they run out of Einsatzkommandos right quick. I like being against these evils and I like being in a position to do something about them!

A freedom restricted is a freedom violated. Restricting freedoms doesn't preserve them. It infringes upon them. The only legitimate restriction on our freedoms or rights are the equal rights of others.

No restriction on gun ownership is a reasonable one, and no restriction on gun ownership preserves it.

Radar, that, in just about so many words, was Ringer's entire point. Read Restoring the American Dream.

I've read it many times over the years and given copies out to friends. I may even have a signed copy. I reject the notion that a right restricted by government is a right preserved.

Funny that you've never grasped Ringer's point there in all those rereadings. I certainly did, in one.

Equal rights include the right to live, not merely surviving gun battle after gun battle as people of my city now have to do every day, thanks to the unchecked-by-feds transportation of guns from other states.

I'm afraid the Supreme Court decision will bring the US back to the early 90's, in terms of crime, gangs, and, you know, domestic terrorism.

You say unchecked by feds, I'll add unchecked by states. Why is that, when there are hundreds of laws on the books to stop illegal transportation and sales of guns?

Is it because they are afraid if they enforce those laws, the masses will realize the push to eliminate guns entirely, is nothing but a power grab by the government?

I say totally unchecked and unregulated gun ownership without any oversight or information shared with any level of government is the way to go.

Heck, if I could I'd make sure there were no serial numbers on any guns.

I want you to tell that to the mothers of the 15 children who died this year so far by gun violence in Brooklyn. In their neighborhoods, in front of their faces. I'm sure you are secure up in the mountain, or the so-called ivory tower where you live. The folks here in the cities frankly had had it with the pro-gun arguments and are about to all but dump all of the out-of-state gun collectors into the river, if they could.

You can't blame all actions by criminals with guns on all gun owners. Pro-gun establishment is tired of a liberal left wing argument that they are responsible for the actions of the 15 dead children. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I'd have no problem telling that right to the faces of their mothers during the funeral. In fact, not one person in the history of the planet earth has ever been killed by a gun. They were killed by the motherfucker holding it.

no - people with guns kill people

Some people need killin' [shrug] especially if they're shooting at kids.

That is what I said.