[Tall_Texan]

Libertarian or not, YOU are the one who proposed the abolition of "ALL gun laws" (your words). That's a proposition I would suggest even the NRA would consider extreme (and I despise the use of that word in politics but, in your case, it seems to fit - at least on this issue).

I suggested you might reconsider with regard to laws that would keep guns from violent criminals and the mentally disturbed. You opined that the law would just empower government and would do nothing to keep guns away from these groups.

So I followed your logic (a law is not good if people are going to break the law anyway) to apply to other areas to illustrate the nonsense of your stated response.

It must have totally boggled your mind because, rather than trying to form a well-reasoned rebuttal, you launch into a tirade of insults - "idiot","moron","Centrist","statist","brainwashed","strawman", and suggesting I need to take my meds. I'm surprised you didn't call me a Nazi and a "facist" (since most folks who would call me a fascist are too stupid to correctly spell fascist).

I will concede that defending the second amendment is different than defending murder or rape. It was not my point to equate the two. It was my point to illustrate the absurdity of your logic.

You have made your point clear. I believe that once convicted of committing a violent crime (you DO believe in laws against violent crime, don't you, even though violent crimes are still committed even after laws are put in place to deter them - or is that just more statist drivel?) that one forfeits certain rights, including the right to vote, the right to freedom and the right to keep and bear arms. Sounds darned "common sense" to me - even though some will still try to vote, still try to break out of jail and still try to obtain weapons. In fact, I'd say my position is darned "conservative", if I dare say so myself.

It's nice to know your "tent bruning" would include a conservative Republican such as myself. I'm so far to the right of our President that it makes me angry that he keeps trying to remake the party into his little RINO clones.

But to suggest that keeping murderers and rapists from having guns makes me an idiot, statist, brainwashed, moron on meds is to truly marginalize your own position. If I confused you for a Libertarian, maybe it's because you demonstrated as much common sense and arrogance as your typical Libertarian. Perhaps you should really give them another look. They seem to be more in line with your belief system.

[Robert_Paulson2]

I suggest you take a pill.
and the NRA is NOT a preserver of the second amendment in my view... they are only a brake, and an ineffective one when it comes to slowing down all you "common sense" gun grabbers.

read one more time stupid.
GUN LAWS DO NOT PREVENT CRIMINALS FROM OBTRAINING OR USING GUNS TO COMMIT THEIR CRIMES... MORE LAWS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION... and the ones we already have are a substantial part of the problem.

NO gun law could be crafted that would stop criminals from obtaining firearms illegally! Since violating the law is what crazy folks and criminals do by definition!

GUN LAWS CANNOT PREVENT GUN CRIME... only punish the perpetrators AFTER the fact. Any "common sense" gun law, can by definition, only impact the law abiding citizen... who could actually benefit the safety of us all by packing without "common sense" restrictions.

you cannot be so stupid as to think a "sensible" gun laws means anything to a person who by nature is not "sensible." so you must be a gun-grabbing hack from the du.

If a person is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to carry a weapon, they still belong in an institution.

Sensible to me, would be to keep them there, till their impact on our un infringable rights is known. Sensible would NOT be creating all kinds of hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through, including "sensible" registration, keeping of records for purchase, or ANY type of infringement on legal citizens rights to keep and bear.

IT is sensible to infringe on the criminal because he is the one who deserves to be locked up and restricted by force: execute him, or keep him locked up. But,DO NOT suggest that citizens kow tow to "pee their pants liberals" who want all kinds of "common sense" laws designed to suppress ownership and use of, guns for self defense by law abiding citizens.

I do of course think "common sense gun grabbers" are felons for attempting to infringe on our constitutionally recognized gun rights... and that those who propose such things should be rightfully charged, convicted and imprisoned, for their "common sense" attempts to vioilate the rkba... right alongside the criminals that their proposed "common sense" laws will never impact.

Six months as bunk mate with bubba... deliverance style, would do a lot of liberal gun-grabbers, like yourself, a world of good. After you post your rules about being left alone in the shower... you would see.. criminals do NOT OBEY LAWS... only endure the punishments those laws assess (if we are lucky and some looney "feel good" common sense judge doesn't commute their sentences).

I am sure the english had "common sense" reasons to make their journey to seize the guns of the patriots the night the "shot heard round the world" rang out near the bridge at concorde. We do not need, your statist constructs of "common sense" restrictions, regarding our inalienable RIGHTS.

go back to the DU...