In response to:

Put Prospective Gun Owners Under The Microscope

dahrens Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 1:53 PM
Google South v. Maryland, (1856), Morgan v. District of Columbia (1983), Riss v. City of New York, (1958), or the nearly 2 dozen other cases where the courts have shown that the goverment "bears no affirmative duty" to protect the individual citizen, but to protect society as a whole. Despite what the President claims "we" need to do, the government is not responsible for our protection, we are. Disarming the law abiding or further restricting our rights will not change that.
Lancelot1954 Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 2:09 PM
Thanks for sharing that. I had heard about those cases but didn't know which they were.

PARIS -- Anyone who can't withstand a rational debate on the subject of gun control -- particularly in light of last week's Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut -- should be automatically prohibited from ever owning a firearm. In fact, this should be the number-one requirement of gun ownership: Can someone applying for ownership of a deadly weapon withstand an hour-long debate against someone in favor of gun control without resorting to physical or verbal assault?

Is it too much to ask that every person wanting to possess a firearm be subject to a battery of tests -- everything from...