Bad news for the AWB supporters

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What do you believe, Danno? Do you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute? That any regulations or restrictions on ownership of weapons is infringement on the right to bear arms?

I believe that ANY restrictions on our right to own firearms is unconstitutional, yes. It is fairly clearly stated and has been determined by the highest court to be so. Unless there is some other meaning to "Shall not be infringed". The existing (remainging) laws will be struck down a little at a time. It is appalling that in the face of the Heller decision, cities like Chicago continue to deny rights to its citizens, but this too shall pass.

Gary, you seem to want it both ways. On one hand, you are saying essentially, that our Second Amendment is absolute (a strict, literal interpretation), but then use a contextual interpretation to define what a person can or can't own for a weapon. But for the sake of your argument - that the Supreme Court has made your assertion (absolute) clear...that is not accurate, even up to the most recent decision - reasonable regulations are acceptable. That is the crux of it all, however, if you are taking the stance that the Second Amendment is absolute, then you are rejecting the plausibility of reasonable regulations, even though you, yourself have some kind of definition of just what kind of arms a person can or can't bear (no nuclear arms even if it fits in a briefcase).

Now let's look at the current laws that are on the books regulating guns. According to you, these would all be in violation of the Second Amendment. Why then, hasn't the Supreme Court ruled such regulations as unconstitutional? I believe the answer to that is twofold. For one, the states have the right to regulate guns and two, because the gun lobby doesn't want the Supreme Court to make any decision in challenging current gun control laws in our 50 states. District of Columbia was unique in that it is under federal jurisdiction, so their ruling for D.C. was limited.

The reason for that is one fold. They haven't been challenged too the Supreme Court level yet and given the clarity of the Heller decision,( I mean it IS remarkable isn't it?) I am not sure they ever will be. Reasonable regulations as covered in the Heller decision are those which restrict classes of people now allowed to own fireamrs...felons for example. People who have lost that right through due process. I have no problem with denying a convicted felon his rights, even the right to remain free. The Supreme does not go about helter skelter ruling on indivdual laws. Many uncontitutional laws fell off the books after Heller. Other, stubborn, politicians will spend more of your money to try and take away your rights. What's new? Heller was the beginning of the process, not the end. All over the US these unconstitutional laws are and will continue to fall. Under the precedent set by Heller and if you are at all up to date on the subject and not just repeating babble, you know that. The "gun lobby" has filed hundreds of lawsuits since the Heller decision, dozens the very day it was announced. On the contrary the Gun Lobby is very much anxious to push ahead with litigation. Now more than ever. It was true, that for a time, neither side wanted to push the issue, but it finally got pushed and the Gun Lobby won. They will now use that to push further. San Francisco folded their tent first, immediately after the Heller decision when the "gun lobby" filed a lawsuit against them. Same day, a lawsuit was filed against Chicago, Mayor Daley has chosen to waste the money of the good people of Chicago in legal procedural delays that will end and the law will fall.

And I never made any contextual interpretations. And I don't want it two ways. I will contend there are no "reasonable" regulations regarding the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens. Am I somehow vague in that?

In Vermont we have NO firearms regulations regarding law abiding citizens. None. Our crime rate is microscopic. It is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm (federal law) it is ileagl to sell a firearm to a minor (federal law) and it is illegal to deface the serial number of a firearm. That's about it. No registration, no limits on purchases, no limits on which guns you can own (machine guns are legal) no restrictions on where they may be carried (except at a polling place on the day of an election LOL Democrats put that one in) and it is such a boringly peaceful place we have to watch imported news for excitement. Heck the museum in Burlington puts a kettle on the sidewalk to collect donations and no one steals the money! Local stores go to lunch and leave the cash register drawer open...make you own change.

Ok I answered you questions...have a go at mine

1. What reasonable regulation would you propose to reduce Vermont's crime rate?

1 a. Which crime would it prevent (actually there are so few you should be able to cite a specific example) Remember, there isn't a person in my county old enough to remember the last robbery that occured here, unless they are really old. I am not sure there was ever a real homicide. I know of one fatal hunting accident, maybe that counts? Maybe. You might have to go back to the 19th century to find one in this county. So how will you reduce that? Also recall that Vermont has always allowed unrestricted concealed carry, since its first day as the 14th state.

2. Why are other, less free, states having a "problem" with "assualt weapons"?

[HAL 9000 96]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What do you believe, Danno? Do you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute? That any regulations or restrictions on ownership of weapons is infringement on the right to bear arms?

I believe that ANY restrictions on our right to own firearms is unconstitutional, yes. It is fairly clearly stated and has been determined by the highest court to be so. Unless there is some other meaning to "Shall not be infringed". The existing (remainging) laws will be struck down a little at a time. It is appalling that in the face of the Heller decision, cities like Chicago continue to deny rights to its citizens, but this too shall pass.

Gary, you seem to want it both ways. On one hand, you are saying essentially, that our Second Amendment is absolute (a strict, literal interpretation), but then use a contextual interpretation to define what a person can or can't own for a weapon. But for the sake of your argument - that the Supreme Court has made your assertion (absolute) clear...that is not accurate, even up to the most recent decision - reasonable regulations are acceptable. That is the crux of it all, however, if you are taking the stance that the Second Amendment is absolute, then you are rejecting the plausibility of reasonable regulations, even though you, yourself have some kind of definition of just what kind of arms a person can or can't bear (no nuclear arms even if it fits in a briefcase).

Now let's look at the current laws that are on the books regulating guns. According to you, these would all be in violation of the Second Amendment. Why then, hasn't the Supreme Court ruled such regulations as unconstitutional? I believe the answer to that is twofold. For one, the states have the right to regulate guns and two, because the gun lobby doesn't want the Supreme Court to make any decision in challenging current gun control laws in our 50 states. District of Columbia was unique in that it is under federal jurisdiction, so their ruling for D.C. was limited.

The reason for that is one fold. They haven't been challenged too the Supreme Court level yet and given the clarity of the Heller decision,( I mean it IS remarkable isn't it?) I am not sure they ever will be. Reasonable regulations as covered in the Heller decision are those which restrict classes of people now allowed to own fireamrs...felons for example. People who have lost that right through due process. I have no problem with denying a convicted felon his rights, even the right to remain free. The Supreme does not go about helter skelter ruling on indivdual laws. Many uncontitutional laws fell off the books after Heller. Other, stubborn, politicians will spend more of your money to try and take away your rights. What's new? Heller was the beginning of the process, not the end. All over the US these unconstitutional laws are and will continue to fall. Under the precedent set by Heller and if you are at all up to date on the subject and not just repeating babble, you know that. The "gun lobby" has filed hundreds of lawsuits since the Heller decision, dozens the very day it was announced. On the contrary the Gun Lobby is very much anxious to push ahead with litigation. Now more than ever. It was true, that for a time, neither side wanted to push the issue, but it finally got pushed and the Gun Lobby won. They will now use that to push further. San Francisco folded their tent first, immediately after the Heller decision when the "gun lobby" filed a lawsuit against them. Same day, a lawsuit was filed against Chicago, Mayor Daley has chosen to waste the money of the good people of Chicago in legal procedural delays that will end and the law will fall.

And I never made any contextual interpretations. And I don't want it two ways. I will contend there are no "reasonable" regulations regarding the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens. Am I somehow vague in that?

In Vermont we have NO firearms regulations regarding law abiding citizens. None. Our crime rate is microscopic. It is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm (federal law) it is ileagl to sell a firearm to a minor (federal law) and it is illegal to deface the serial number of a firearm. That's about it. No registration, no limits on purchases, no limits on which guns you can own (machine guns are legal) no restrictions on where they may be carried (except at a polling place on the day of an election LOL Democrats put that one in) and it is such a boringly peaceful place we have to watch imported news for excitement. Heck the museum in Burlington puts a kettle on the sidewalk to collect donations and no one steals the money! Local stores go to lunch and leave the cash register drawer open...make you own change.

Ok I answered you questions...have a go at mine

1. What reasonable regulation would you propose to reduce Vermont's crime rate?

1 a. Which crime would it prevent (actually there are so few you should be able to cite a specific example) Remember, there isn't a person in my county old enough to remember the last robbery that occured here, unless they are really old. I am not sure there was ever a real homicide. I know of one fatal hunting accident, maybe that counts? Maybe. You might have to go back to the 19th century to find one in this county. So how will you reduce that? Also recall that Vermont has always allowed unrestricted concealed carry, since its first day as the 14th state.

2. Why are other, less free, states having a "problem" with "assualt weapons"?

And Mr.Roth, or whatever

You really need to do more than pull one phrase out of context and highlight it. The "reasonable restrictions" referred to were those designed to prevent felons and others from owning firearms. You know it and so do I. We will see how many reasonable restrictions stand up. The basic premise of a "reasonable" anything is that it have a "reason", hence reason-able. How is a law like the Aussault weapons grandfathered moratorium reason-able. What is the "reason" to ban a firearm by name? What is the reason to ban a cosmetic feature of a firearm? How could such a law stand up to any interpretation of anything "reasonable" In fact, the phrase you quoted has opened many doors for the gun lobby, not closed them. It is now a matter to be decided if an existing law is reasonable by virtue of whether it acheived its goal. The gun lobby can, has and will argue that if the law has been in place for X years, and hasn't reduced crime, its stated reason for existance, then it is not "reason-able" The reason, being demonstrated false is no longer a reason and therefore the law is without reason...UN-reason-able. Watch and learn. The HUD restrictions on firearms were the most recent to fall. New Orleans was sued and suffered a heavy judgement in a class action suit for confiscating firearms in the after math of Hurricane Katrina. There was no "reason" to take law abiding citizens firearms...more to come. I am optimistic about the future...and you? Gun laws in Cleveland have been abandoned rather than fight the lawsuit. San Francisco repealed their ridiculous oppression of their residents. Chicago is a hold out, stubborn Mayor. But it too will fall. DC re-wrote their law, it was challanged immediately. They are re-writing it again.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

Exactly. You are exactly correct, thank you very much. Thank you, thank you.

The causes of crime as you so eloquently point out are NOT related to firearms. Population density, poor education, markets for criminal activity (although Vermont IS a major route for drug smuggling they seem to keep their guns put away until they get to NY where they are relatively assured of un-armed victims) ALL of these factors influence crime, gun laws do not. Gun laws cannot prevent crime because they do not address the causes of crime, as you have demonstrated so clearly.

I was really hoping you would come along and make my point. I am so glad everyone has come back. Yes, in addition to no gun laws in Vermont we have a beautiful state, good education, one of the highest college education rates in the country, no market for crime because we are all armed and the risk doesn't support the benefit. You are correct.

Lets everyone give a big hand to HAL9000

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

You are not "budging" (barging) in at all. Thank you so much. And yes, it includes Burlington a very beautiful, clean friendly city where you are perfectly safe to walk the streets, but look both ways before crossing at the corner just to be extra safe.

I always get just a bit perturbed when someone like Bill O'Reilly says we don't protect children in Vermont because we don't have this or that law he wants. Yet we have the safest state in the country for children. Go figure. The children know where the rifle is kept behind the kitchen door and how to use it. They're safe. Like I said, we are a libertarian state, very conservative in our liberalism. Basically we can piss anyone off!!!!!!!! Kinda like if someone implicates we need some of those "reasonable" gun laws to reduce our crime rate.

I want to know...which house would you choose to burglarize in Vermont? I mean it would be easy, really. Most homes are not locked and we are pretty affluent here and have lots of "stuff"? Oh, and which car would you try to jack up? I never heard of a car-jacking in Vermont and cars are really useful here, you would think someone would try to steal one. Wonder why that never happens? Maybe because thieves don't like Suburus? Or is it they don't like Suburus driven by moms packing heat? What do you think?

Oh and don't get the impression we have to shoot our way out of the grocery store, or parking spaces, never happens. There is no crime because we are armed. The idea is to carry a big gun with nasty looking hollow point bullets that would make gaping, sucking chest wounds...and then never use it. Nothing discourages rapists like sucking chest wounds, really.

[HAL 9000 96]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

Exactly. You are exactly correct, thank you very much. Thank you, thank you.

The causes of crime as you so eloquently point out are NOT related to firearms. Population density, poor education, markets for criminal activity (although Vermont IS a major route for drug smuggling they seem to keep their guns put away until they get to NY where they are relatively assured of un-armed victims) ALL of these factors influence crime, gun laws do not. Gun laws cannot prevent crime because they do not address the causes of crime, as you have demonstrated so clearly.

I was really hoping you would come along and make my point. I am so glad everyone has come back. Yes, in addition to no gun laws in Vermont we have a beautiful state, good education, one of the highest college education rates in the country, no market for crime because we are all armed and the risk doesn't support the benefit. You are correct.

Lets everyone give a big hand to HAL9000

Actually, Gary, a market for illegal criminal activity- mainly drugs... comes from the consumer market being in demand of a certain product. Vermont is quite the special example as its population density, combined with the high rate of mean population education, and conscientious decision making skills, reduce the demand for drugs. Anyway... the social factors that contribute to the symptomatic effects we see reported on in the nightly news (shootings of several sorts- gang violence, petty and grand armed robbery, socially perverse individuals causing massacres, etc), are what they are and are separate analysis.

The political consequences of said factors are what should be discussed here- not the Constitutional foundations- though very valid and appropriate. Hence this is why proper contextualization is necessary.

A medium must be met initially, while these social factors are handled as a nation, where the production of any kind of weapon described by Steven is severely controlled to minimize the statistical likelihood that it will end up in the wrong hands. While preserving the fundamental rights of the individual, law abiding citizen to own their own piece of mind if that so settles their unease with the government they sometimes follow blindly and yet rush to condemn when weapons ownership are put into the spotlight. Weird... but it will have to be compromised as such.

I live in Chicago. And those stubborn measures you talk about coming from Mayor Daley are one preventative measure aimed at getting less weapons onto the streets in the wrong hands. This is mainly symbolic, since the flow of weapons has been diverted from locations that do not ban them, but partially effective because law enforcement has been able to intercept more illegal ownership while preserving legal ownership. In other words, the crime waves we have had here would be worse if these criminals had even more access to more guns within the city.

Yes, Chicago has legal gun ownership by civilians. Plenty of civilians I know here have their IL FOID and CCW and appropriate small arsenal at home. With the current wave of criminal activity within this city, these weapons are not being utilized to either fight crime or have when the G-Men come to be tyrants.

[HAL 9000 96]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

You are not "budging" (barging) in at all. Thank you so much. And yes, it includes Burlington a very beautiful, clean friendly city where you are perfectly safe to walk the streets, but look both ways before crossing at the corner just to be extra safe.

I always get just a bit perturbed when someone like Bill O'Reilly says we don't protect children in Vermont because we don't have this or that law he wants. Yet we have the safest state in the country for children. Go figure. The children know where the rifle is kept behind the kitchen door and how to use it. They're safe. Like I said, we are a libertarian state, very conservative in our liberalism. Basically we can piss anyone off!!!!!!!! Kinda like if someone implicates we need some of those "reasonable" gun laws to reduce our crime rate.

I want to know...which house would you choose to burglarize in Vermont? I mean it would be easy, really. Most homes are not locked and we are pretty affluent here and have lots of "stuff"? Oh, and which car would you try to jack up? I never heard of a car-jacking in Vermont and cars are really useful here, you would think someone would try to steal one. Wonder why that never happens? Maybe because thieves don't like Suburus? Or is it they don't like Suburus driven by moms packing heat? What do you think?

Oh and don't get the impression we have to shoot our way out of the grocery store, or parking spaces, never happens. There is no crime because we are armed. The idea is to carry a big gun with nasty looking hollow point bullets that would make gaping, sucking chest wounds...and then never use it. Nothing discourages rapists like sucking chest wounds, really.

No offense, but I think you're confusing intent/deterrance of would-be criminals where there are none in your neck of the woods. Figuratively and statistically speaking. Besides, packing a little smaller heat would theoretically yield a faster bullet hole on a would-be perp anyway, specially at close range where the absolute majority of individual instances of crime occur.

Quite simply, there is no crime where you're at because there is no singular reason for there to be crime. That has everything to do with those social factors I mentioned and very little to do with the fact that guns are a deterring variable. Common sense. This whole thing about an armed society being a polite society is way too John Wayne for any rational mind to digest- given the short fuse on most Americans' attitudes.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

Thank you Hal for your kind words about our state, very true indeed.

I hope that the leadership of our country will see what you have so well pointed out here. We need to address the causes of crime. Causes that are so much more difficult to correct than passing gun laws that do not nothing but put on a show. It is so much cheaper to pass a gun law that really has no exense to the government than to overhaul our failing education system that is one of the true causes for crime. "Opinion Polls" skewed to report a desired result just make it easier for the politicians to ignore their duty and pass stupid laws against tiny cosmetic features of firearms and tell the (largely uneducated on firearms) public that they have "done something".

It is really a travesty of what we have elected them to do. They should protect our rights not take the excuse of "fighting crime" to try and take them away.

Hal, I hope you will write to your congressman (well, wait on the Senator, OK, because we aren't sure he will be there too long) and tell them exactly what you have told us here. It is NOT gun laws we need, it is laws aimed at the causes of crime. I will join you and I will be sure to tell Bernie Sanders him when I see him in Burlington.

I agree with you, Hal. Completely. Thank you.

[Danno 1,228]

What do you believe, Danno? Do you believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute? That any regulations or restrictions on ownership of weapons is infringement on the right to bear arms?

I do believe it's as "absolute" as any right offered in the bill of Rights.

However, like all rights they can be restricted by; time, Place and Manor.

One of the biggest mistakes we make, not just on this issue but many is we, surrender way to much power to the federal law makers, rather than state lawmakers.

I am a firm believer that states all are different and therefor might require different laws, the "one size fits all" has two huge flaws.

1. It often meets the desires of a few people in just a few places.

2. I think it was Jefferson who spoke of States as each being an "experiment in democracy", when certain states try things and they work, other states will (if it suites their needs) follow.

When Washington DC dictates a ban or law, everyone is under the same conditions and we don't know if the end result is better, or worse than the ill it was intended to cure.

Of course nothing is without a downside. if California were to legalize drugs, other states might feel

the effects of their drug traffic, just as a ban on certain guns in one state might not be as effective as it would be if all states had the ban, it's not a perfect system but certainly better than the alternative.

...And The feds do have authority to severely enforce "interstate" criminal activity,as is their role.

So in short, I might be inclined to agree "States" have the Right to restrict certain Firearms

But not the Fed, Govt.

Logic being, If people don't like the results of a states actions... they can pack their bags and move to another state, (as happens often).

But when the Fed Passes these laws, there is not escaping and very little way to judge it's effectiveness (assuming the law was within the Constitutional limits to begin with).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

However, like all rights they can be restricted by; time, Place and Manor.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

You are not "budging" (barging) in at all. Thank you so much. And yes, it includes Burlington a very beautiful, clean friendly city where you are perfectly safe to walk the streets, but look both ways before crossing at the corner just to be extra safe.

I always get just a bit perturbed when someone like Bill O'Reilly says we don't protect children in Vermont because we don't have this or that law he wants. Yet we have the safest state in the country for children. Go figure. The children know where the rifle is kept behind the kitchen door and how to use it. They're safe. Like I said, we are a libertarian state, very conservative in our liberalism. Basically we can piss anyone off!!!!!!!! Kinda like if someone implicates we need some of those "reasonable" gun laws to reduce our crime rate.

I want to know...which house would you choose to burglarize in Vermont? I mean it would be easy, really. Most homes are not locked and we are pretty affluent here and have lots of "stuff"? Oh, and which car would you try to jack up? I never heard of a car-jacking in Vermont and cars are really useful here, you would think someone would try to steal one. Wonder why that never happens? Maybe because thieves don't like Suburus? Or is it they don't like Suburus driven by moms packing heat? What do you think?

Oh and don't get the impression we have to shoot our way out of the grocery store, or parking spaces, never happens. There is no crime because we are armed. The idea is to carry a big gun with nasty looking hollow point bullets that would make gaping, sucking chest wounds...and then never use it. Nothing discourages rapists like sucking chest wounds, really.

No offense, but I think you're confusing intent/deterrance of would-be criminals where there are none in your neck of the woods. Figuratively and statistically speaking. Besides, packing a little smaller heat would theoretically yield a faster bullet hole on a would-be perp anyway, specially at close range where the absolute majority of individual instances of crime occur.

Quite simply, there is no crime where you're at because there is no singular reason for there to be crime. That has everything to do with those social factors I mentioned and very little to do with the fact that guns are a deterring variable. Common sense. This whole thing about an armed society being a polite society is way too John Wayne for any rational mind to digest- given the short fuse on most Americans' attitudes.

Chicken or egg, Hal? We have always allowed all people to carry firearms. If there are no criminals, then you have to answer why? Expensive homes packed full of good stuff and no dorr locks sounds pretty tempting.

Now as to your choice of the firearms you carry concealed, Hal, thats a personal thing. Statistcally, truly statiscally, speaking ANY firearm is better than nothing in preventing crime. Personally, I am well trained with handguns and use a 3" Kimber Custom, Ultra CDP in .45 ACP. Too much gun for a lot of people. Better a .380 or even a .22 if you can't handle the bigger gun. A hit with a .22 is far more effective than a miss with a .45. Not as noisey but more effective to be sure. I don't worry about missing. It is virtually never necessary for an armed citizen to actually shoot someone, I was being a bit facetious. Silly me. Actually any firearm is usually enough to discourage criminals. The presence of many firearms in private hands, particularly when it is isn't known whose hands, is enough to discourage the presence of criminal activity

Sorry but your last part is simply wrong. Here is how it breaks out...

2 states do not allow people to carry concealed firearms at all...Illinois and Wisconsin.

2 states allow anyone to carry a concealed firearm without a permit...Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska didn't always, they copied)

9 states allow concealed carry on a "disgressionary basis", that mjeans the local Sheriff gets to decide if he thinks you need a to carry a firearm. Now in two of those, Alabama and Iowa, the Sheriffs pretty much agree you need one if you sat so and hand out the permits easily. Likewise New York where most of the county Sheriffs will do the same, but not all. That leaves 6 that have disgressionary carry but with varying degrees of difficulty.

It hasn't always been this way. In 1965 only 3 states allowed concealed carry. Vermont (always) Alaska and Washington. The first to change this was Florida in 1986 when in the grips of a drug fueled crime wave they passed the first of the countries "new" concealed carry laws. In the next 15 years the other 36 states followed suit to the howls of Sarah Brady, Newspapers, and doomsday predictions everywhere. Never happened. As crime rates dropped, other states joined in. Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas were the last. Wisconsin has passed concealed carry TWICE, only their anti-gun Governor Doyle has prevented it from becoming law. Soon enough.

So, Hal..You are in IL? Yes?

Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana have all passed concealed carry laws in the last 15 years. They have all had reductions in crime attributed to this law. So tell me, why would the people of IL not be able to handle this? Why would we expect a different result in IL than in every other state? Why would the politicians of IL in face of overwheming evidence (no common sense but tins of evidence) deny this right to IL residents? Does it concern you just a bit that yuour politicians deny you rights othes have for no reason? In fact they deny you the benefit of reduced crime. Now what could be the reaon for that?

But in 42 of our 50 United States law abiding people can carry concealed firearms. Now that is a cross section that goes far beyond "common sense" Yet every county of every state that has implemented these laws has had reductions in crime in general and gun realted crime in particular and in every state the largest beneficiaries were women, not surprising to me. It has nothiung to do with John Wayne, since none of us act like John Wayne.

Yes, crime rates among those states vary, for all the reasons in your previous post reagrding the causes of crime, but ALL have a decrease in crime since passing the concealed carry laws. If that goes against you common sense...sorry. The studies were done by the University of Chicago, Dr. John Lott. You can read them on the web, just google "John Lott". He actually did county by county studies, really remarkable evidence.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

####### is disgressionary?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

However, like all rights they can be restricted by; time, Place and Manor.

I see. we have gotten past the nuclear weapon, battleship, other social ills and now we are using the mispellings of the opponent in our arguments.

Perfect. It is always my goal in a debate to drive my opponent to meaningless responses, and or making my point for me (thank you again Hal) except it happens so quickly. I bet if you look at my posts, you will find lots of mis-spellings. I type real fast, about as fast as I can shoot an assault rifle, and make lots of mistakes, so you will have plenty to debate. Good luck.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hey, I'm all for your right to bear arms.

I'm not here to fight you. I am, however, here to make fun of you.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

####### is disgressionary?

Yep. I was right. Keep looking there are more. You are helping your cause so much. Please keep posting. Oh for the uninitiated I will say this poster is AGAINST your rights to own firearms, it is hard to tell, I know.