I'm curious to your comment on this:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/01/18000685-five-year-old-boy-accidentally-shoots-kills-sister

this is just about plain stupidity and does not have anything to do with safety or liberty.

BTW I notice that you after my remarks about freedom you replace this word with the word liberty, but that does not mean it changes the fact that true freedom is something totally different that gun rights.

Again you do avoid the question:

Why do have car owners have to have their cars registered and have to have licence to prove they can carry the responsibility to to drive a call while there is no such things for guns?




>>>Fresh from my wine country trip I have decided to drop this pointless discussion once again with a few parting thoughts.
>>>
>>>To any questions which revolve around asking me some form of "why I need X" the simple answer is : Because I want them and because I can. That is almost the most basic element of America’s founding and freedom, and it’s why those who rail against it are perhaps the most evil amongst us.
>>
>>Ah, now you're being honest. The wholy differe discussion wraps around that you want them because you can , and does not have anything to do with self defence or safety.
>
>You'll find that the vast majority of my positions start with liberty. While I may choose to engage someone else's false assumptions regarding safety with an argument for self-defense, that is not a diversion from the core of liberty. The ability to defend oneself and one's property is paramount to one's liberty. I have been quite consistent in this regard.
>
>On the other side of the gun control schizm I'd suggest there is quite a bit of dishonesty regarding motivation. While citing "safety" issues and using questionable studies and statistics to suggest that everyone is less safe with a gun, they'll ignore the more dangerous everyday items in terms of safety. By dismissing the comparison as apples and oranges or more plainly as "stupid" they demonstrate their motives to ban guns specifically, not pursue "safety".
>
>Mayor Bloomberg is the perfect political reflection of this. He had his team and a plan for media and legislation. Regardless what the specifics of the next maniac's killing spree were he was going for an all out gun-control push.
>http://politicker.com/2013/03/after-aurora-how-mayor-bloomberg-planned-to-make-the-next-massacre-count/
>
>He doesn't care about preventing the next Sandy Hook he cares about restricing people's rights.