All right man, I just know I can be an ass to debate with sometimes.

[quote]Full disclosure, I am extremely ignorant about gunlaws. Mainly because feel I don't need one.[/quote] I'm glad you've never felt the need for one. I've interrupted a domestic dispute with one, and I'd do it again if need be. [quote]But as I said before it seems everytime this issue both sides seem to demand "my way or no way". What gun advocates should realize is, it comes off as very intimidating when an average person sees a rally of people openly carrying rifles or shotguns or whatever. That's a scary sight for most people especially when they are shouting.[/quote] Protests and rallies always involve shouting. I have yet to hear a quiet one. However, and more to the point, they certainly could have been smarter. Could have used less frightening guns. But it does make the point that they could legally tote an AR or AK around, but they couldn't carry a pistol openly. [quote]What gun control advocates fail to do is be clear about how they want to regulate. They have to be clear of there intentions.[/quote] Most of them are very clear. They want tighter access control. They want fewer people carrying. They want arbitrary restrictions on magazine capacity and cosmetic features. In short, they want to make gun ownership more of a hassle, which would naturally limit the amount of people who would endeavor to exercise that right. [quote]Me personally I believe we should keep violence and drug offenders(dealers or users) restricted from permits. And more emphasis on mental evaluations and a stricter adherence to those. Transporting anything larger than a hand gun must be locked in a container and unloaded(this is incorporated in most states Ii believe). Concealed carry should require an additional permit and shouldn't be allowed on private property(businesses) unless stated otherwise by the owner(s).[/quote] This is where we won't find a middle ground. I believe that self-defense, and thus the tools of self-defense, are a basic human right. By requiring a permit, it turns a right into a privilege. Most states don't require a permit to own, but some do. Some, like New York's pistol permits, are "may-issue", meaning they must be approved (and can be denied) by a local police chief or sheriff. If you get a racist sheriff, this could (and has) be bad news for any non-whites who would like a pistol for self-defense. Martin Luther King, Jr. was an example of this when he applied for a permit in Mississippi and was denied. Requiring mental evaluations before firearm ownership is the antithesis of "innocent until proven guilty". No other tool carries such a requirement. Hell, cars kill roughly 20,000 more people per year than both gun homicides [i]and[/i] accidental fatalities, yet there's not even a background check to buy a car. A drunk with multiple DUIs can still legally buy both a car [i]and[/i] alcohol. And you'll note I'm excluding suicides from the firearms fatalities due to the nature of suicide. If people can own guns, people will commit suicide with guns. Business owners in every state can bar lawful concealed carry in their establishments, either by signage with force of law [b]or[/b] by "trespass", depending on the state. Your idea for regulation of long gun carry is disadvantageous for hunters and won't be followed by criminals. However, that is an absolutely socially acceptable method of transport that most of us gun owners abide by. All felons, drug abusers, and those that have been deemed mentally defective are already barred by federal law from gun ownership by the 1968 Gun Control Act that I mentioned in an earlier post. [quote]There's probably a lot more to cover but this is just based on my limited knowledge. I welcome your input. [/quote] I can give you a quick rundown of federal laws (similar to my earlier response), and you're welcome to ask about specific states, I can give you general information on most. [quote]I think we can agree that the recent shootings indicate that something has to be done nationwide.[/quote] Not at all. Violent crime has been on a downward trend in the United States since the mid-90s. This has coincided with a near-universal relaxation of gun laws. This isn't to say that guns caused the drop in crime, just that an increase in guns certainly hasn't resulted in an increase in crime. The biggest folly is that events like Louisiana and Chattanooga and Charleston will happen with or without strict gun control. Our mental health treatment in this country is atrocious, and we've seen examples from England, Norway, France, Australia, and elsewhere that prove no amount of gun control will make these incidents go away. The fact of the matter is that, despite prolific media coverage, mass shooting events claim far fewer lives than cars, alcohol, and a slew of other causes in the United States.

^^^