Hmm, since I put in my "2 cents" last week this thread has surely grown. Whatever, there are basic differences of opinion, and some persuasive arguments by the informed on both sides of the issue plus the occasional nonsense which crops up on TBN when the topic of guns arises (the "government" is not confiscating guns in the US, Canada or Australia...WHERE do people come up with that stuff). I do concur with the obvious; countries are different and what suits the citizenry of Australia and Canada may not fit here, no problem. I would be the last to throw stones at either country, given they've far less debt per capita than the US and seem to have less fractious, at least at present, legislatures than we have had recently. Could be that their more homogeneous populations (principally caucasian, Christian) have something to do with it. Whatever, getting back to my query why do we (enthusiastic gun owners, me included, and the NRA) need to group the right to bear arms in the same category as the right to have 20 plus shot magazines (no way a hunter needs such, or for self defense unless you can't hit the broad side of a barn) or mandatory background checks for criminal/mental record before gun purchases at any venue, including a private sale. The 332 to 206 electoral college vote this past election, for a president whose first term was far less than a rousing success and with unemployment still high, should serve as a wake-up call to aging, caucasian (given posted pictures), suburban/rural males, that predominate on TBN, like me for instance. Yeah, I know, some feel that with no 100 round magazines pretty soon "the government" will want our 22s - nope, I don't buy it. And, I think that is about where the voting majority of the US (and certainly Canada and Australia) are, and given demographic trends.... Ain't good, and maybe not bad either, just is.
