The extravaganza of bold text appeared to suggest otherwise.

You misinterpret passion as issues.

I'm interested. I get why the right to bear arms was so cherished to begin with. Wherever colonial Britain stuck her snout - scars abound. I suspect the Africa thread will highlight a few. But you've been electing your own for long enough, and you're more armed than ever. Which leaves your civil war.

Other nations disarmed on cessation of hostilities. Why not America?

This entire part of your post indicates your misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the reason for the 2nd Amendment. The Right to keep and bear arms is not just for personal protection or as deterrent to invasion by a foreign power, it was intended by the authors as insurance against a tyrannical threat from within as well. A disarmed population is the first step to total control. Many examples exist in history I will not belabor them. I don't understand what your comment on the Civil War was about.

If you don't mind another question? You believe gun ownership makes America a safer place. Do you advocate that the rest of the world follows your example?

I really don't know where this comes from. No other government on earth that I am aware of, Constitutionally guarantees it's citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Speaking for myself I really don't care what the rest of the world does or does not want in the way of personal firearms. What I do have a BIG problem with is other countries trying to change our guaranteed rights(UN Small Arms Treaty). That is what 1776 was all about in the first place.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Other nations disarmed on cessation of hostilities. Why not America?

USA is forbidden to have a standing army. Someone had to have weapons at the ready.

---

Would have responded earlier but the dog needed a cr*p.

I have no issues.

Then you're a rare man. The extravaganza of bold text appeared to suggest otherwise.

You asked for my view, I gave it. Accept it or not does not matter to me. If you have a point to make, make it, don't couch your comments in attempted psychobabble words like 'sensing'.

I'm interested. I get why the right to bear arms was so cherished to begin with. Wherever colonial Britain stuck her snout - scars abound. I suspect the Africa thread will highlight a few. But you've been electing your own for long enough, and you're more armed than ever. Which leaves your civil war.

Other nations disarmed on cessation of hostilities. Why not America?

If you don't mind another question? You believe gun ownership makes America a safer place. Do you advocate that the rest of the world follows your example?

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

The Gun Control Crowd is lying about their intentions.

It is not about Gun Control. But People Control.

The Left, as The Nazis. Truly believe they are superior.

Very succinctly put.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

or gun control ops that bad word

Gun control doesn't work.
Criminals and bad guys get their weapons anyway.
In Scandinavia it's cheaper and more easy to buy them illegally.

'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'

Unless he's faster and better shooter than you

Perhaps a bullet proof jacket is better.
No licence needed to wear them.

or gun control ops that bad word

---

'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'

Perhaps a bullet proof jacket is better.
No licence needed to wear them.

And that's my view.

I sense you have issues. Thank you for clarifying them.

It crossed my mind that a less contentious solution would have been to allow the GOP candidates weapons too.

But on re-reading the statement below:

'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'

I see the difficulty that would pose in distinguishing between who's who.

I have no issues. You asked for my view, I gave it. Accept it or not does not matter to me. If you have a point to make, make it, don't couch your comments in attempted psychobabble words like 'sensing'.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

But on re-reading the statement below:

'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'

I see the difficulty that would pose in distinguishing between who's who.

Yes, that seems to be the crux of the issue.
Government = Bad Guy
Examples abound, from Pol Pot to ...

---

And that's my view.

I sense you have issues. Thank you for clarifying them.

It crossed my mind that a less contentious solution would have been to allow the GOP candidates weapons too.

But on re-reading the statement below:

'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'

I see the difficulty that would pose in distinguishing between who's who.

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

I'd simply ask the people at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Los_Angeles_International_Airport_shooting if the complete absence of guns at an airport kept them safe. Remember in a gun free zone, no one has guns. Not even cops! Oh wait! For a gun free zone to work, you have to have dozens of gun toting people to enforce that no one but them has a gun. That isn't a gun free zone, that is a total government control of your life zone.

Exactly the point, criminals don't obey rules, you might as well say 'Gravity Free Zone', same effect on reality......none!

Just like "There is no such thing as an unloaded Gun" there is also "No such thing as a Gun Free Zone". Too believe otherwise is a naive fool's paradise.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I'd be interested in your view.

My view on the article is it's an example of the strawman arguments always perpetrated by the 'anti-gun no matter what the facts are' crowd. The strawman here is the purported 'hypocrisy' of not allowing concealed carry in a SECURED venue.

There are many areas that concealed carry is not allowed because of the security already in place as evidenced by metal detectors and ARMED uniformed and non-uniformed operatives as was the case in both venues. Concealed carry license holders understand this and willingly eschew their firearms in such situations.

To just declare an area a 'Gun Free Zone' without the proper institution of adequate security in lieu of personal firearm protection for those properly licensed and trained is an invitation to those who would commit heinous atrocities unless deterred.

The sign might as well read "We Won't Shoot Back". Those who commit such acts are cowards who do not wish to be confronted by armed resistance when slaughtering innocents, that's why they choose Schools, Churches, Restaurants, Strip Malls and yes, Theaters. The journal of 'he I refuse to name' in Aurora Colorado details his 'casing' the Denver International Airport and other venues for his 'statement' but then deciding the security and thus the chance of his being stopped was too great. Another 'one I refuse to name' made the same decision in a church in Charleston.

These A**wipes are not interested in dying, they are interested in making others die. The much maligned Wayne La Pierre and the NRA stated after Sandy Hook 'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. The police are not and cannot be everywhere, the final responsibility for personal protection against violence rests in the hands of each individual, as it always has.

And that's my view.

I'd simply ask the people at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Los_Angeles_International_Airport_shooting if the complete absence of guns at an airport kept them safe. Remember in a gun free zone, no one has guns. Not even cops! Oh wait! For a gun free zone to work, you have to have dozens of gun toting people to enforce that no one but them has a gun. That isn't a gun free zone, that is a total government control of your life zone.

---

I'd be interested in your view.

My view on the article is it's an example of the strawman arguments always perpetrated by the 'anti-gun no matter what the facts are' crowd. The strawman here is the purported 'hypocrisy' of not allowing concealed carry in a SECURED venue.

There are many areas that concealed carry is not allowed because of the security already in place as evidenced by metal detectors and ARMED uniformed and non-uniformed operatives as was the case in both venues. Concealed carry license holders understand this and willingly eschew their firearms in such situations.

To just declare an area a 'Gun Free Zone' without the proper institution of adequate security in lieu of personal firearm protection for those properly licensed and trained is an invitation to those who would commit heinous atrocities unless deterred.

The sign might as well read "We Won't Shoot Back". Those who commit such acts are cowards who do not wish to be confronted by armed resistance when slaughtering innocents, that's why they choose Schools, Churches, Restaurants, Strip Malls and yes, Theaters. The journal of 'he I refuse to name' in Aurora Colorado details his 'casing' the Denver International Airport and other venues for his 'statement' but then deciding the security and thus the chance of his being stopped was too great. Another 'one I refuse to name' made the same decision in a church in Charleston.

These A**wipes are not interested in dying, they are interested in making others die. The much maligned Wayne La Pierre and the NRA stated after Sandy Hook 'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. The police are not and cannot be everywhere, the final responsibility for personal protection against violence rests in the hands of each individual, as it always has.

And that's my view.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Gun Free Zones Get People Killed.

You really believe that. I can tell. Came across this:

Fascinating.

I'd be interested in your view.

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

America has a crazy control issue.

+1000

Gun Free Zones Get People Killed.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

John Russell Houser a man who had "a Georgia judge's order committing him to mental health treatment against his will as a danger to himself and others," passed a background check and bought a gun.

When are the gun control nuts going to realize it isn't gun laws that are the problem. It is laws like HIPPA hat don't allow Doctors and health professionals to talk about the mentally ill who should be kept away from guns that are the issue?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MOVIE_THEATER_SHOOTING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-07-25-18-01-07

"It sure does seem like something failed," said Judge Susan Tate, who presides over a probate court in Athens, Georgia, and has studied issues relating to weapons and the mentally ill. "I have no idea how he was able to get a firearm."

Houser never should have been able to buy a gun, said Sheriff Heath Taylor in Russell County, Alabama, whose office denied him a concealed weapons permit in 2006 based on arson and domestic violence allegations, even though the victims declined to pursue charges.

Houser racked up plenty of complaints, but no evidence has surfaced of any criminal conviction that would have kept him from passing the background check required for many gun purchases. Federal law does generally prohibit the purchase or possession of a firearm by anyone who has ever been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

That's what happened to Houser in 2008 after his family accused him of threatening behavior, warning authorities that he had a history of manic depression or bipolar disorder and was making ominous statements. His wife removed his guns and together, the family persuaded a judge to issue a protective order keeping him away once he left the hospital.

At that point, court officials should have reported Houser's involuntary mental commitment to the Georgia database that feeds the FBI's background check system, which provides for a delay of up to three days when records suggest a buyer may be ineligible.

Questions about gaps in the system also arose after James Holmes bought firearms to kill 12 people and wound 58 others in a Denver suburb three years ago, and after Dylann Storm Roof allegedly used a gun he bought this year to murder nine churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina.

But while both young men showed signs of trouble, neither had criminal convictions, nor where they hospitalized against their will.

Roof had admitted to illegal drug possession in a pending criminal case, however, which under federal rules would have been enough to disqualify him from a gun purchase even though he wasn't convicted.

Someone has to say it. Three gun control law failures. Shouldn't that be three strikes and gun control laws are out?

America has a crazy control issue.

---

We don't have one offical language that everyone understand.
Perhaps 50 countries with some of them having several languages.

50 States, 50 dialects. You need the opportunity to hear a Maine Lobsterman trying to talk to a Louisiana Cajun Shrimper..........priceless. ":D)

Dialects as well:)
I have problem to understand some of our dialects.
Yes. one state with many Swedish dialects.
For instance the Southern part when many of us wants subtitles.
The counties Värmland and Jämtland close to Norway as well.
The island Gotland not far from Stockholm.

And of course Älvdalen:)
Here is a text from the Bible.

Men aindjeln saggd að diem: Warið it skerner! Ig kumb min buoð að ið at ið ulið war sturglaðir, ollt fuok ul werd glaðir. I dag ar ien frelser kumið til að ið i Daviðes stad, og an ir Messias, Ärrn.

To get back on topic.
Authorites like the police can in fact be misunderstood in duty when they have different accents.
It happens quite often here that the police listen to much on the dialect of a "perpetrator"/perpetrator.

We don't have one offical language that everyone understand.
Perhaps 50 countries with some of them having several languages.

50 States, 50 dialects. You need the opportunity to hear a Maine Lobsterman trying to talk to a Louisiana Cajun Shrimper..........priceless. ":D)

Yes, they'll likely settle on Mayan with a bit of LAM Spanish thrown in.

We don't have one offical language that everyone understand.
Perhaps 50 countries with some of them having several languages.

50 States, 50 dialects. You need the opportunity to hear a Maine Lobsterman trying to talk to a Louisiana Cajun Shrimper..........priceless. ":D)

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

The alleged 'Gun Culture' of The USA, varies from City to City, State to State, Region to Region, Culture to Culture.
Those travelling across this Continental, Multi Language, Culture, Religion, Different Laws, Different Penalties, etc. Will say to themselves: 'What Country am I in now'?
As with most of The USA:
Attempting to define 'American Culture', regarding many things: Is either an 'Exercise in Futility'. Or exposing ones ignorance of The USA.

Replace the words USA and American to Europe and European.
We are in the same boat:)

To understand The USA...
Think of Europe - Lite.

Hehehe. Perhaps Europe is a province of the US after all like Putin Thinks.
One big difference though.
We don't have one offical language that everyone understand.
Perhaps 50 countries with some of them having several languages.
Sweden has two:) Switzerland has Three.
But on the other hand most countries understand english.
Well. Perhaps not France and Germany:)