That's exactly what a good leaker/whistleblower would say while he/she collects more information.

Do you imply that it would be better if only the wealthy (and criminals who steal their guns) could afford them?

The consumer/taxpayer gets money taken out of their paycheck for federal income taxes for R&D. The government would spend the money on research and development. Once developed and patented, the government would collect royalties on the patent from the corporations who would pass the cost on to the consumer in the cost of products and services.

Once again, the consumer takes it in the rear. I say let industry continue to pour money into research and leave out the government middle-man.

What about deprivation of rights under color of law? They've already confirmed that 4th amendment protected rights were violated. Now, we're just talking about how to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

I shoot 3-gun competitions. I've yet to see anything get killed at one. Actually, any unsafe behavior will get you DQ'd and kicked out. It's a very fun and social sport. It improves hand-eye coordination, memory and awareness.

I also help farmers with pest control. Since January, we've eliminated over 150 of this invasive, non-native species. We use semi-auto AR-15s. Sometimes, we take the meat, but the main purpose is to protect the farmland to keep food costs as low as possible.

I also carry concealed. I've had friends who have been raped and mugged with no ability to defend themselves. I carry a pistol to protect my life and my family. The purpose is protection, not killing. Killing may be a side-effect, but the choice is not mine at that point, it's the choice of the aggressor that's willing to put me into a position where I feel that my family's life is in danger.

I shoot long range precision rifle. It's a great competitive challenge in many ways. From loading the ammo, to adjusting to environmental conditions and researching to reduce the variables, it's a very rewarding hobby that improves focus, math and concentration skills.

Guns can kill. They can be both a tool of first aggression and a tool of defense. That's the nature of a tool. If you ban one because of its potential uses, then you may as well bad the 3D printer because of its potential uses. Banning something because of what someone considers its "primary" uses is just as asinine. A criminal bent on killing 100s of people isn't going to stop his plans to burn down a library with molotov cocktails just because gasoline's main purpose isn't destruction.

I don't expect you to admit it here AC. But you need to do some research. Go look at the other uses of guns instead of regurgitating an argument posited by someone else who doesn't know any better. The point about gasoline is that there are many other items that can cause death and destruction.

The facts of the G.Zimmerman case are impossible to know (unless you're one of the two involved, it's hearsay). Had he not owned, he may have died with his head bashed in on the pavement or he may have decided to stay home. What about the 71 year old "self-defender & concealed carrier" in FL a few weeks ago. Had he not owned a gun, that could have been much harder and uglier.

The gun store owners informed the ATF that these large purchases seemed suspicious. The ATF told them to complete the sale.

Question: While it is not uncommon in law enforcement to let the item "walk" usually, there's a mechanism in place in advance to track the item. What was the mechanism that the ATF operation was going to use? I've not heard anyone state how they were going to track these weapons (no transmitters, they stopped agents from following them). How was it ever supposed to work?

Step 1: Push gun dealers to complete sales to suspicious individuals
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Intercept and arrest the big shots

I make no claim to the title 'reason' and I'm a libertarian. Maybe you're using inductive reasoning. Perhaps, just the libertarians that you know are unreasonable, emotion-driven and all of the other negatives that your stereotype describes.

I don't know of any conspiracy nuts at Harvard, but it's possible that they could be there and publishing papers. The paper doesn't claim that the Soviets skewed murder rates in the US. Read it closer. It's very reasonable to think that the Soviet Union did suppress homicide data without it being conspiracy nut bullshit.

Laws against possession of objects because of what you "might" do with it. Extrapolates into laws against possession of 3D printers because of what you "might" do with what you "might" print. The concept of an easy to use effective 3D printer quickly undermines object prohibition.

Can you site a study, published report or otherwise verifiable data to support your claim?

You could teach Bell & Howell a thing or two about projection.

I just have a curious mind. I'd honestly like to know if your basing your position on empirical data, if it's just a stereotype that you've created, or if there are some other underpinnings. Though at this point, I think that I have my answer.

Here's a review that may interest you. May the cargo dropping gods bless you with their bounty:
Would banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide
A review of International and Some Domestic Evidence
Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
It's quite a surprise.

Actually, it's illegal for civilians to own automatic weapons made after May 1986. For the remaining automatic weapons (pre may '86); any purchase (dealer to civilian or civilian to civilian) requires a lengthy background check, fingerprint cards, a $200 excise tax and a 3 to 9 month processing delay as the forms are processed through the BATF and background checks are performed by the FBI.

The price range of automatic weapons ranges from $3000 for an automatic MAC 10 to $15000 for an M16.

In contrast, the combination of glass bottles and gasoline requires no such background check, is much more affordable and creates much more widespread and indiscriminate destruction. My point is that the term and concept of "gun-crime" is as illogical as "spoon-calories", or "penis-rape", or "crow-bar burglary". Further gun regulations imposed on the non-criminally minded Americans would be an iron-door-paper-house security scenario. It would provide an old stage for acting out additional plays of security theater that would rival the TSA.

If you're curious about existing gun regulations and the burden, ask an American gun-shop owner about all of the bureaucracy that they have to struggle with. It's easy to assume that the media's narrative is accurate. It's not. You've seen it with technical stories. I don't believe that it's due to a nefarious agenda other than profit through sensationalism and the cost of getting details correct. They often blur the lines between semi-auto and full-auto. If a rifle is black and has a pistol grip and removable magazine, then it gets called a "military style" or "military assault" rifle even though the military wouldn't consider it to be an assault rifle.

Next, our 2nd amendment is written in a very particular way as part of its checks and balances. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Because our government's authority comes expressly and voluntarily from the people, there must be a mechanism with which to resist should the government (federal or state), militia, or other citizens attempt to take more authority than was given to them through law. It's very apparent that it wasn't written for hunting, or sport. Penn and Teller have a very good youtube video on the subject. Now, the argument would be: "But if the US became a tyrannical government, what are the civilians with semi auto rifles going to do against a modern army with UAVs, Tanks, Helicopters, Aircraft carriers, etc?" 2 things:> 1st: We have a civilian volunteer army. Think through the implications of that statement. 2nd: Can you think of this situation in history? A massive, highly technical military force against a poor equipped indigenous guerrilla force. We've played both sides throughout American history and have many examples where the local indigenous forces either kicked butt, or made the fight so costly that it ended. The first one started in 1776 and the guerrilla force was us. A more modern example would be Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. The large, technical force didn't fare so well.

With regards to the story. The genie is out of the bottle. Multiple genies are out and have been for some time. No one can put them back in. Guns are in this country and as the Japanese said during WWII about the problems with invading mainland America: "There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." A semi-auto (and likely a full auto) gun can be manufactured surprisingly easy.

What you don't see on the news regularly that is skewing the perspective is how many legally owned concealed carry weapons are around. I was taught to shoot from a very early age. I carry my Glock 26 wherever I go (where legally allowed). Yet, it doesn't make for very sexy news. Therefore, you don't hear about it. You don't hear about it, therefore your whole base of experience is from it going wrong. There are many examples (on a fairly regular basis) of a concealed carry individual saving lives. I pray that I never have to use mine. You'll also hear statistics that push a flawed conclusion stating that you're x% more likely to be killed by a gun than using it defensively. These statistics for some reason include gang vs gang killings, suicide, bad guys getting shot while committing a crime.

I don't blame you for your views, there's a lot of information out there that's just wrong. It's really hard and time consuming to objectively look through the data, weigh the risk and form a good opinion on the topic. But there are too many competing agendas to make decisions without doing your own homework. Talk to some more Americans on both sides of the debate. Try to sort through the mindless slogans and inductive reasoning, and you'll see that a well armed populace is a good thing. Are there negatives? Hell yes. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Yes. Is there a way to reduce or eliminate guns from society? No. Attempts would be both ugly and unsustainable. It would create an imbalance in power that would collapse between 10 and 50 years.

Can you site a study, published report or otherwise verifiable data to support your claim?

"At a UN disarmament conference in 2008, Sergei Korotkov of the Russian Defense Ministry argued that anytime a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another country's government — even in the name of democratic reform — it should qualify as 'aggression.' "

Read the above, and please describe how this (in any way) is a good idea. Please help us all to understand how we could have taken the above quote out of context, and that considering the promotion of ideas should qualify as "aggression".

Here, let me play a scenario for you... I submit that Sergei Korotkov just initiated an aggressive act against all countries who recognize the individual right's of free speech. Thus, this is an act of war by his own definition. He has chosen allies, and began the first battle in a war.

See what I did there?

To claim that the expression of information or ideas can be classified as acts of aggression is in itself aggression looking for a trigger. It boils down to a simplistic excuse to attack others if you don't like what they are saying to you and your citizens.

It's not even a slippery slope. It's a cliff. Example: Wikipedia claims that democracy is good. That's a clearly aggressive act against totalitarian states. Justification to retaliate in this war granted unless you censor us from your political beliefs!

Justifying one thing as aggression carries with it the implication that you're just in defending against such "aggression" with more aggression. The more that the definition of aggression expands, the more aggression we'll all experience.

From page 53: "With more than 85 percent of the Nation’s 11 critical infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector, it is vital that the public and private sectors cooperate to protect this strategic national asset" So, they define critical infrastructure to mean the 15% owned by the public sector and the 85% owned by the private sector. Now for your #2... Computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure". Well that about covers the entirity outside of private LANs.