Yes.

I’d be willing to bet that most non-cops with carry permits have safer gun handling behavior.

Yes, I agree that beliefs have caused much pain - typically when someone tries to force their beliefs onto others.

The main problem with this is the fact that ethics are subjective bullshit. Most people think that they are black and white, but these are just their beliefs.

To be fair, there are a lot of Hillary supporters who see nothing wrong with her decades of scandals, either.

I’m a minister with the ULC as well. I offered to marry two people on a cruise ship once, but they were both too scared to get married. Smart people!

You offered up your “life-threatening illness” as “evidence” first. Now you’re saying that no one has any right to know about it?

I would like a show of hands of people who didn’t have a pretty good idea as to why this was a no at the outset.

All those little containers from Chipotle, and not one of them contains anything with any flavor.

Or...shave that shit off your face. Girls will thank you.

Just lock your laptop in the same hard case that you use for your checked firearm. It won’t get lost or damaged that way.

Meh. I’ve owned two Z06 Vettes (a C5Z and a mildly built C6Z), and I used them as my everyday drivers for years. I put about 100K on each one and had a blast while doing it. I still miss that C6. That one woke up the neighborhood when I pressed the detonator button in the mornings and it was like sledding down an…

but you are actually, factually, demonstrably wrong in your views on guns.

Your citations are news outlets and an anti-gun organization? Thanks for the laugh! Good one!

Just because four justices in Heller disagreed, it doesn’t change the Supreme Court’s ruling. Until it’s challenged again at that level, it doesn’t really matter how many or few dissented.

It’s a right of “the people.” It says so explicitly and clearly. SCOTUS ruled as such with the Heller decision. The militia - well regulated or not - has nothing to do with this being a right of the people. The part before the comma is just establishing the need for an armed populace for national defense due to their…

By every accepted interpretation, you are wrong. I’ve read the Federalist papers, and it does provide some background into the thinking of some of the founding fathers. The ratified US Constitution says what it says, though. (Very clearly, in short, simple language, too.)

Ha! Nice try, but that’s not what it says at all - in older English or in modern English. It clearly states that it is a right of “the people.” You just ignored that part. Can we just ignore parts of the Bill of Rights which we don’t like? Here’s a hint - No.

It’s not a silly comparison at all. You’re arguing that protected rights should be abridged due to advances in technology.

There’s nothing to “deal with” about the 2nd. Amendment.