That's great Cast1es! That's exactly what I advocate for. I don't have an LTC. I just bought a gun. It was too easy and some loopholes (gun shows, private transfer) require nothing at all. I think we may be on the same platform unless you think there should be absolutely no regulation.

Within the last year , three men broke into a house in the sub division next to mine . It was in a much richer , gated community . They tied the home owners up in chairs , then shot both of them through the head . I have never gone hunting , and never plan to . I live alone . I have not fired my gun since I bought . Mine is self defense , only , not for killing defenseless animals .

@Biptu You might find that "these idiots" aren't all snowflakes Biptu. We just don't need to be packin when buying groceries.

Yes the last time I purchased a handgun I gave them my name and possible my SSN, I'm not sure, but I remember it just took a couple of minutes to be approved. No questions, no training. BTW I keep guns unloaded, clip out and locked in a safe.

@rogueflyer I have a common name, so I have to wait about a week any time I purchase a gun. It’s not a problem.

I live alone and keep mine loaded & chambered in a safe. I live in a good neighborhood, but occasionally get odd folks drifting in. Being a smaller fella, owning a gun makes the difference between confidently telling someone to get out of my back yard instead of sitting there & hoping they leave.

@rogueflyer ,
must be a lot safer where you live than Phoenix. if i were an american i would have loaded hanguns within reach.

@callmedubious Hmm, I'm not paranoid.

@Biptu Yes, you could say any gun is an ‘assault’ weapon, but usually it means a semi-automatic rifle that takes certain kinds of high power ammunition.

@indirect76 "...semi-automatic rifle that takes certain kinds of high power ammunition." Actually, the ammunition used in modern semi-automatic rifles are are erroneously identified as "assault weapons" are much less powerful than traditional deer rifles and former (WWII), military rifles. Statements to the contrary are the ignorant rhetoric of the anti-gun faction trying to evoke demagoguery as a weapon. But don't let the facts change your mind.

Yes, it does. I'm assuming it's here in the US you're referring to that toddlers have shot their mothers and vice versa. But look at the craziness that the voters elected.

Having never been to New Zealand, I can only guess that their culture with regards to guns is very different than the culture in the US.

@indirect76 The culture in regards to guns is very different all around the world. Only in the US does this insanity happen every day.

@indirect76, @rogueflyer Yes but it seems to me like no matter if you vote Republican or Democrat they still let NRA get away with murder, literally.

@Jolanta The Republicans seem to be more cozy with the NRA.

@Jolanta Un fortunately, you are absolutely correct.

@Biptu You honestly need to educate yourself about gun crime in New Zealand. This is not only stupid but also misleading what you are saying. New Zealand don’t have gun crimes, this was a person from Australia going to New Zealand for the single purpose to take advantage of the lax gun laws, spouting how he admires Donald ending up with killing 50 people at a mosque.

@Biptu oh yeah because so many shootings have been stopped by law abiding gun toting people.

I agree completely. Thank you.

i was in the armed forces & took up target practice with an olympic type hand gun. are you saying that i shouldn't be allowed to fire at targets a few times/yr?

@callmedubious No. An Olympic style rifle is not an automatic or semi=automatic weapon. I approve of private ownership of bolt action and lever action rifles, as well as full length shotguns. They have valid uses in hunting, varmint control, etc.

@wordywalt ,
you are so anxious you didn't even comprehend my post..
a said i own am olympic type HANDGUN.

@callmedubious Sorry that missed that. I have no problem with such a target pistol, so long as the gun is stored and used within the confines of a gun club-- as is done in Germany and in competition between gun clubs.

@Biptu One can defend one's home and self with a rifle or shotgun. Open carry actually increases gun violence.

"I am also a gun owner, and was rated "expert" with the M-1 rifle in the Army." No one cares. I have been breathing for 75 years and that does not make me an authority on the respiratory system.

@wordywalt "One can defend one's home and self with a rifle or shotgun. Open carry actually increases gun violence." Show us the data that indicates open carry increases gun violence.

@dahermit If you listen to the news, you have all the data you need.

@wordywalt How can you expect me not to "slam" you when make a ridiculous pronouncement and then do not provide any evidence for what you say. If you think "...listen(ing) to the news, you have all the data you need." is a link/reference to actual data, you are a complete idiot. "reasoned opinion"...my ass. Defend your "reasoned" statement: "...Open carry actually increases gun violence." Show the proof.

@dahermit Enough of your silly games. You know damned well that thanks to the NRA and a Republican congress, it is forbidden for the federal government to collect data on gun violence.

@wordywalt "You know damned well that thanks to the NRA and a Republican congress, it is forbidden for the federal government to collect data on gun violence."
yet, here it is...a quick google search showed many links. I will just post three:
[en.wikipedia.org]
[nytimes.com]
[vox.com]
For God's sake (an Idiom), go to your local community college and take English Comp...they will likely teach you to do a research paper wherein you will learn to cite sources. It would also benefit you to take a logic class. Your lack of logic and incompetence relative to intelligent debate is too difficult to deal with. While I am giving advice, you may as well look up "The Dunning-Kruger Effect", also.

@Biptu: Case in point.

I think the rest of the world feels the same.

Maybe the 'well regulated' part means nothing

@Count_Viceroy What do YOU think it means in the context of the performance of the militias in the American revolution?

@Novelty Change it you twit.

@dahermit so we're talking context? Muskets only then.

@icolan Ron Elving's editorial/opinion notwithstanding, you do realize that the only entity that can "interpret" the Constitution (Second Amendment) is the U.S. Supreme Court do you not? Given that, how could the NRA "change its meaning"? The authors of the Second Amendment were quite clear as to its meaning. It is the anti-gun people who are trying to make an end-run around the original intent of those who authored the amendment. Its intent was to insure that the citizens right to keep arms to allow those citizens to prevail in battle against foreign invaders and possible internal threats. Until the Second Amendment, the federal government was charged with providing military arms to the militias (citizens).

"(about which we could have a separate debate as to whether it's actually a right given that it was stated in the context of state militias, not private ownership per se)." "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are only three entities recognized in the Constitution as having rights. The Federal Government, the state Government, and the "People"...a "Militia" is not one of them.

"But even if we grant for the sake of argument that citizens have a right to arm themselves for private purposes,..." The Second Amendment does not state there there is a right to arm themselves for "private purposes". "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It states that the people can keep and bear arms for the security of a free state...however, you may point out where it states otherwise if you wish.

Agreed. People like to pretend like the bill of rights are absolute. Perhaps some are more than others, but even something so preciously defended as freedom of speech is not absolute. One cannot threaten people, yell fire in a theater or lie to people in certain scenarios.

The second amendment has it’s limits in the same way.

@dahermit That was my point ... people have a right to keep and bear arms for a very specific purpose, that being the common defense via "well regulated" militias. We haven't even HAD militias in a long time, and todays automatic weapons are a far cry from the muskets the framers had in mind.

@mordant "...todays automatic weapons are a far cry from the muskets the framers had in mind." A common anti-gun platitude. However, consider the meaning of the Second Amendment (and Artical One, Section eight of the Constitution), was to assure that the militia (civilians) could prevail in combat against an enemy equipped with the common infantry weapons of the day. How then does the Second Amendment not refer to the common weapons of today's modern militaries (automatic weapons, detachable, large capacity magazines), when it is completely accepted the the First Amendment is not limited to quill pens and paper, printed words, but internet and cell phone communications. In that light, saying that militias (people) should be restricted to Brown Bess Muskets and spontoons is ridiculous. Modern weapons are implied, just as are cell phones relative to the First Amendment.

@dahermit We don't have militias anymore.

@mordant Are you really that unaware? There several in my home state of Michigan alone.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Article one, Section eight of the Constitution establishes the militia...where in the Constitution does it eliminate the militia?

@dahermit Some ragtag bunch of conspiracy theorists who are a self-proclaimed militia is not "well regulated" or organized to the end of national "security". Come on now. Seriously? Thats your argument?

Militia were conceived as an adjunct to the military in an era when communication and travel were arduous and slow and funds for a standing army scarce. The idea was that the government could call on locals to pick up arms and defend the country when called upon -- not that individuals could pick up arms against the government at personal whim.

@mordant "The idea was that the government could call on locals to pick up arms and defend the country when called upon --" To pick up their arms...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms." would seem to give the people the right to form those "self-proclaimed militias". As for "well regulated" it only means "well practiced", and people and militias today do a lot of practicing. Furthermore, if no Amendment is made to the Constitution, the Second Amendment still stands...or are the other Amendments candidates for just being ignored?

You'd have to get licensed to fly an A10.

@rogueflyer yeah ?