[_Jim]

As it stands now, ONLY the criminals and thugs on both sides of the law are "permitted" to be armed.

Is this just an attempt to utilize hyperbole in an argument - or do you not know how wrong you are?

'Concealed-carry' is not the law in a number of states (including mine) rendering your above argument pretty foolish ...

Also, you're revealing yet more ignorance on your 'IIRC' about my stance on such issues.

Better research next time will save you this kind of embarassment.

[_Jim]

Errata:

Concealed-carry' is not the law in a number of states ... ==>

Concealed-carry' is *now* the law in a number of states ...

[dcwusmc]

It is only marginally close to hyperbole... ask DiFi and UpChuck Schumer. And I would not be so proud of having to ask government "permission" to exercise a RIGHT granted by GOD. All that does is give them a list of who is KNOWN to own weapons when the crackdown comes. You're actually OK with this?

The ONLY TIME government has any business whatsoever knowing who has what weapon is when that government has ISSUED that weapon to someone. Otherwise, for obvious reasons, it is NEVER good for ANY level of government to have such knowledge. In the cases of ACTUAL (as opposed to potential) misuse of a weapon, government in a FREE society has the authority to apprehend and prosecute the misuser, presuming he survives an encounter with an armed citizen. That is ALL the authority government has. READ the Constitution for the United States with your mind open to what the Founders actually MEANT and not what a socialistically-inclined modern FedGov WANT it to mean.