rob

I should run for congress.

At least acknowledge that there would be a huge time lag between regulation and effective implementation. With so many guns out there now (unregistered) that would be the de facto status quo for quite some time. So, yes you could regulate, but there would be a period where this regulation would be ineffective. sure, of course. All the more reason to get started! Also, we should consider regulation of ammunition. I suggest that to buy ammunition, you have to present a gun registration. This will force unregistered guns to become registered.

shootouts with fully automatic weapons are rare, are you actually saying that the banning of automatic weapons was ineffective? Weird Also, I don't know how old you are, but currently a 15 year-old cannot transfer a title to his name, which means he doesn't own it. This may vary state-by-state, but you must at least admit that it is very hard to own a car without actually owning the title and registration -- which is my point. You do not have a lot of black-market car ownership. Or, are you denying that, too? Sigh, obviously your opinions are based on ideology, not reason. I can think of at least a dozen other things that have been successfully regulated. Can you?

I really doubt that it would prevent anything illegal. All it would do is prevent you from selling me a gun without me having a background check. bad guys are going to get guns one way or the other. Ah, it's the "there is nothing we can do they will get them anyway so let's not bother trying" argument. Derp. We keep 14 yo kids from buying cars and we keep nearly everyone from buying thompson submachine guns and hand grenades, you think we can't keep criminals from buying handguns? Just institute a full record of ownership, like a car title, with transfer of ownership, and make people renew their registration every few years to prove they still have the gun. Spain does this. Sure, a criminal might get a gun illegally, but we'll know who sold it to him by tracing the serial number or by catching the guy who can no longer prove he has his registered weapon in possession. Every sale and transfer of title must be recorded -- just like a car. When was the last time you ever bought a car on the black market? Exactly. LOTS of countries prevent illegal gun sales using this method. I don't know why some americans are convinced it will never work, especially since we've never tried, and especially since we have successfully restricted and regulated so many things.

yeah, good point It's weird the NRA is fighting the ONE THING that would really prevent the illegal sale of firearms.

The only privilege law-abiding citizens are at risk of losing right now is the right to buy guns without a background check and (possibly) the right to buy (brand-new) assault rifles. Doesn't seem too bad, to me. And I'm a gun owner, too. In my younger days, I was even an NRA member!

Wait, women poop? I've been assured that they do not.

Imagine Firing quickly enough to hit two moving targets with a bolt-action rifle. Respect.

by Kaili Joy GrayFollow for Daily Kos From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment I don't know any liberals that hate the second amendment, although I suppose they exist.

Ugh

If the military can have M-60's, why can't I? Go Ron Paul!

I remember bone mentioning several times that his vote didn't even matter....QED?

Another badass woman

Roza Shanina

Don't believe everything you read!!! (except crazy-ass 9/11 conspiracy theories)

why wait?

so wrong!

they are on the rise, it affects deployments, and sexual assault is also a big problem are you suggesting none of these to be the case? Nope, but I'm suggesting that they may not be a big enough problem to cause me to support segregation. These arguments don't sound very different than theories that a desegregated army would "damage unit cohesiveness." What if blacks in combat DID affect unit cohesion, should we ban them from combat just so the rednecks don't get pissed? Pregnancies and assaults are better handled by providing birth control (the three studies I read on the first page of google all mentioned lack of access as a main causative factor in the problem) and assaults are better handled by prosecuting the criminals and other matters of culture. I don't think that you should disenfranchise an entire gender just because they're slowing down the troops after they get raped or pregnant because you couldn't provide the troops with condoms. Are you saying we can't fix these problems any other way?

Google it. It's not hard. What are you suggesting? That unplanned pregnancies in the military are on the rise, or that they are specifically affecting our ability to have an effective fighting force? I can find evidence for the former but not the latter. I also can't find anything to lead me to believe that the Pentagon would intentionally do anything to negatively affect our fighting capabilities, so if the Pentagon seems to think that military pregnancies are not a big enough reason to segregate genders, then I will defer to them. I read that the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended this action. Are they not in a position to know? Should I not trust their judgement on such matters?

Starship Troopers taught us that women and men can fight next to each other in peace

We should only draft hot women. There would be no more wars.

I saw a documentary earlier this week about sexual assault of women in the military. They estimate it is as high as 50%. And it has been systematically covered up for decades. Does this mean they are also addressing that issue? And pregnancy has been a problem in the services for years. No, nothing to look at here, move along! The pentagon doesn't seem to think it's too big of a problem, I'll defer to them. I don't currently have any complaints about the effectiveness of our military as a fighting force -- just our missions and strategies

math!

On the other hand, the draft didn't stop Vietnam I hadn't heard that women now had to sign up for the selective service....