Willravel

I'm not just a flower farting, anti gun liberal, though. I do recognise the imporatnce of what todays version of a militia means. The government cannot be allowed to have more power than the people. The Second Amendment is of pivital importance because we are seeing Bush abuse his powers right now. What the forefathers saw as a well armed milita, I see as a citizens union of sorts. We need an invisible 4th power in checks and balances: ourselves. Going back to guns for a moment (wlel for the rest of the thread, probably), I do not want to make guns illegal. I'd like to see people responsible enough to use them get them, and those who are not to be kept from getting them. This isn't just a national issue, in fact. I suspect that international law would benifit from multilateral decisions about the legality of weapons in general. Supplying arms and such should be better regulated than it is. Gun regisration would benifit all. Make the list public (yes, I am insane). BUT make sure that everyone who checks the list is also monitored. If someone looks at a person not having a gun on the list, and then that person is robbed, we'll have a very, very likely suspect. Then that person is prosecuted and sentenced to the full extent of the law, and it is widely published that 'the system works'. This will put a quick end to people trying to abuse the list. Mind you, I am working this out as I write it, but at least I'm thinking about it instread of just thinking about escelation. I want to do everything in my power to keep guns from bad people. In that, I suspect that we are on the same side.
I know the stats and the history. I also know that this is a desicision for the people of SF to make for themselves, and I defend their right to make such a decision. I'm not stupid. I know that there is little if any prescedent for success in the gun ban, but I do know that it's possible.
That same question was once asked about nuclear weapons. No one came up with an answer beyond MAD.
They're hypocrites, but we alreay knew that.
I'd break him in two if he ever even thought about putting my daughter in any kind of harm. Even if the guy is an excelent fighter, I know can give my daughter enough time to run and hide.
Guns are too dangerous in general. No one should have them. Of course that's absurd asn they've already been invented. All we can do now is try to limit the destructive capabilities of guns, such as being available to criminals.
An intruder really would have a great deal of trouble getting into my house, so the question is moot. I'll play along anyway. No one will rape my daughter because I won't let them. I don't need a gun, and neither should anyone else.
There will be criminals, but they will be a hell of a lot less dangerous.
They are lax in some cases and practically non-existant in others. They are inneffective because of efforts by organizations like the NRA to prevent things like gun registration (which has been brought before the House more than a few times).