The_Sponge
Oh really? Because they have endorsed Democrats in the very recent past, and will do so in the future.

Ya rly. Their "Obama's gonna take yer guns!" bullshiat was and is just that. Complete bullshiat. I don't give a rat's ass that they sometimes endorse democrats at lower levels when I see the blatant lies they spout at the highest level on behalf of their right wing masters.

Here's a quick example:

Obama's Secret Plan to Destroy the 2nd Amendment by 2016. (new window) (new window)
by Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President

Really. That batshiat crazy, pure bullshiat article is by one of the NRA's VPs. It's published in the NRA's news magazine. This is the bullshiat they are spouting to their members. Actually that article shows me that their lies are far more blatant, their conspiracy theories far crazier than I thought. It's World Net Daily level crazy.

The same GOP fellator, Mr. LaPierre, recently got called out as a liar by PolitiFact (new window) for claiming that Obama "endorsed a total ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns."

In 2008, FactCheck called out the NRA for lying their asses off (new window)about then candidate Obama's position on guns. "A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition." The NRA was actually claiming that: "Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition."

So yeah. Really.

Mavent: Democrats understand that mouth-breathing hillbillies are never going to vote for them under anyway.

Personally, I view gun ownership on the same level as child porn- I couldn't care less if you've never actually harmed anyone else, I just think you're a creepy bastard for having that particular hobby.

You forgot to throw in a penis comment, but I'll give you creativity points for the child porn comparison. B-

HotWingConspiracy: mongbiohazard: HotWingConspiracy: This is why selling guns to Mexican cartels is no big deal. Guns don't kill people, and in fact make everyone safer.

The entire raison d'etre for the Mexican cartels IS to violate the laws regarding narcotics. Gun laws do not, will not and can not disarm them. I don't think any sane people would argue otherwise. You do know that the Mexican cartels get a lot of their firepower from the Mexican military through illegal means, right?

But gun laws can certainly disarm their victims. That's why more restrictions on firearms usually don't make sense. You're only disarming the very people who society has no problem with owning a weapon.

What? I'm just saying guns don't kill people. I thought this was common knowledge.


No, that's not what you're saying. Don't be coy. You were making a spurious comparison.

mongbiohazard: HotWingConspiracy: mongbiohazard: HotWingConspiracy: This is why selling guns to Mexican cartels is no big deal. Guns don't kill people, and in fact make everyone safer.

The entire raison d'etre for the Mexican cartels IS to violate the laws regarding narcotics. Gun laws do not, will not and can not disarm them. I don't think any sane people would argue otherwise. You do know that the Mexican cartels get a lot of their firepower from the Mexican military through illegal means, right?

But gun laws can certainly disarm their victims. That's why more restrictions on firearms usually don't make sense. You're only disarming the very people who society has no problem with owning a weapon.

What? I'm just saying guns don't kill people. I thought this was common knowledge.


No, that's not what you're saying. Don't be coy. You were making a spurious comparison.

Given that guns do not kill people, selling them to anyone willing to buy doesn't present any problems. Now if those people act inappropriately, they're clearly not very responsible and deserve punishment.

Good math is good.

The_Sponge: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ya know, Dems, your protestations that the Democratic Party no longer cares about gun control would be more plausible if gun control wasn't part of the Democratic party platform.

Firearms

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements - like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Link (new window)


It's always the same bullshiat. "We support the Second Amendment, BUT......."

And I like how they made the comparison between Chicago and Cheyenne.....in other words, some people get to enjoy their rights just because they live in a different state or city.

Not only that, but to use Chicago as an example of a gun control success story is beyond retarded. A city that has had some of the strictest gun laws in the country for 30+ years and that is consistently among the most violent in the country is used as an example of the "success" of gun control. Pants on the head retarded.

Mearen: You can't expand rights you already have. Even if the gubment tried to take away said rights, they were always yours.

Well, previously to Obama, you couldn't take your guns into a National Park, now you can, if you don't want to call that an expansion of gun rights then call it what you will.

Bag of Hammers: Mearen: You can't expand rights you already have. Even if the gubment tried to take away said rights, they were always yours.

Well, previously to Obama, you couldn't take your guns into a National Park, now you can, if you don't want to call that an expansion of gun rights then call it what you will.

It's scaling back the violation of your rights.

And FYI, National park carry was pushed through as a rule change under Bush jr., until some idiot judge decided it needed to be put on hold pending an environmental impact study.

Jim_Callahan: Its worth noting that while a correlation isn't enough to prove a positive claim, a lack of correlation is enough to disprove a proposed causative relationship that should result in a fairly clear correlation. Welcome to falisifiability, lads.

jeblis: Abuse of responsibility by armed citizens is rare

Tell that to this kid.

Several states, including Texas, were asked by their legislatures to keep a separate tabulation of crimes committed by CCP holders, expressed in both absolute terms and per active license. In Texas' case, there is literally only one crime that CCP holders didn't commit with a significantly lower frequency than the general population, and that is "failure to present license upon request"... because it's literally impossible for an unlicensed person to fail to present a license.

So... yeah, rare is probably the right word there.

If you're curious about the specifics of the statistics, here ya go. You'll have to look up the number of licenses issued v. the population to convert the numbers on that link, but nonetheless.

Jim_Callahan: Addendum to my previous post: roughly 2% of the population of Texas has had an active ccp for the last decade or so if you're not up to looking up the specific numbers. So a proportionate number of convictions would be 2.0%.


I saw your post and decided to take a look at the stats quickly. Just so people know where I'm getting my numbers, I'm using 2009 crime reports. As for the population of Texas, 2011 est. pop is about 25.6 million, so just guess here, but I'm going to approximate 25 million as the pop. for 2009. As per Jim's post, 2% of the population has a CCP permit, so that would equate to 0.5 million permits (and for simplicities sake, lets assume that 1 permit = 1 person, although the validity of this assumption may be iffy).

Texas pop - 25,000,000
CCP individuals - 500,000
non CCP individuals 24,500,000


So looking at some of the crimes that have more than 1 or 2 CCP convictions, lets compare the conviction rate of the non-CCP population vs the CCP population.

Agg assault deadly weapon - 2603 total convictions, 4 CCP convictions.
So for the non-CCP population - (2599/24,500,000)*100 = 0.0106%
For the CCP population - (4/500,000)*100 = 0.0008%

Agg sexual assault of child - 1350 total, 13 CCP,
Non CCP - (1337/24,500,000)*100 = 0.00545%
CCP pop - (13/500,000)*100 = 0.0026%

Deadly conduct - 1510 total , 19 CCP
Non CCP - (1491/24,500,000)*100 = 0.00608%
CCP pop - (19/500,000)*100 = 0.0038%

Terroristic threat of family/household - 695 total, 2 CCP
Non CCP - (693/24,500,000)*100 = 0.00282%
CCP pop - (2/500,000)*100 = 0.0004%

Unlicensed carrying weapon - 2523 total, 9 CCP
Non CCP - (2514/24,500,000)*100 = 0.01026%
CCP pop - (9/500,000)*100 - 0.0018%


So overall, as Jim said, it looks like that CCP population has a lower conviction rate for most crimes reported. That said, does this really surprise anyone? Assuming you're going through the effort to obtain a conceal and carry permit indicates that you are likely someone who is a law abiding citizen and likely belong to a part of the population that is going to follow other laws anyways. Someone intending to conceal and carry for the purposes of committing a crime likely isn't going to go through the effort of obtaining a legal permit to carry.

Does this mean there aren't issues with conceal and carry? Not at all. But for the purposes of strictly comparing the conviction rates of the CCP population vs the non-CCP population, it would appear (For Texas) that they tend to have a lower conviction rate than the non-CCP population.

annitabonghit: Does this mean there aren't issues with conceal and carry? Not at all. But for the purposes of strictly comparing the conviction rates of the CCP population vs the non-CCP population, it would appear (For Texas) that they tend to have a lower conviction rate than the non-CCP population.

It's consistent nationally. Felony rate for CCW holders is also 1 seventh that of LEOs.

1 nut does something dumb with a gun -- Moon bats bark it's proof why gun must be banned.

+9million gun owners handle guns safely,
gun ownership skyrocketing,
gun accidents going down,
Crime rates down -- moon bats bark "correlation / causation".

National violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s began to decrease markedly since 1993

Wolfenstein 3D is a seminal first-person shooter game first released in 1992

Doom (typeset as DOOM in official documents)[2] is a landmark 1993 first-person shooter video game by id Software. It is widely recognized for having popularized the first person shooter genre

coincidence? I think not... but thats right.. video games have turned us all into killers..or has it??

Bag of Hammers: Sybarite: I've never really understood the Democratic Party continuing to carry the gun control banner when it has obviously alienated a significant number of their natural working class constituency while simultaneously fueling the nutty gun-culture of the right.

When was the last time the Dems ran on the that? The 90s? They've pretty much given up that plank of the party (Obama has expanded gun rights further than Bush did). I agree the NRA continues to run on the "Libruls are cumming to take yer guns!!" narrative. But the war is over, and the Gun Rights folks won. All that talk does now is drive the cost of ammo.

/gun owner
//hates NRA with a passion of a thousand white phosphorus rounds.

Agreed 100%.

Obama has enough sense to see he doesn't want to get in that fight with all of the other crap on his plate. Bunch of dumb, redneck, right wing nut jobs driving the cost of ammo up. It used to be going out shooting was a good, cheap way to spend a Saturday. Now, Going out shooting for an hour will cost you 50-60$ in ammo. It's crazy, for almost a year a bunch of plaid clad, Copenhagen chewing, clowns where waiting in Wal-Mart every day that ammo came in waiting to buy up the whole load, and the isn't an exaggeration. Guys were buying 2-3k in ammo, and emptying the shelf. I didn't shoot my .45 for over a year because I couldn't find a box of ammo for under 40$. (for those who don't shoot, it used to cost about 11-12$)

Gun prices are the same. Every paranoid nut job out there is buying up everything with a mag that hold more than 10 rounds; thinking the big scary black man in office is going to ban them again. You used to be able to grab up M1As and M4 type rifles for well under a grand. Now a cheap M1A will run you 1300$. If you want to buy guns, go for it, but please limit yourself, and try to stop your paranoia from driving the cost through the roof for the rest of us.

youtook: Bag of Hammers: Sybarite: I've never really understood the Democratic Party continuing to carry the gun control banner when it has obviously alienated a significant number of their natural working class constituency while simultaneously fueling the nutty gun-culture of the right.

When was the last time the Dems ran on the that? The 90s? They've pretty much given up that plank of the party (Obama has expanded gun rights further than Bush did). I agree the NRA continues to run on the "Libruls are cumming to take yer guns!!" narrative. But the war is over, and the Gun Rights folks won. All that talk does now is drive the cost of ammo.

/gun owner
//hates NRA with a passion of a thousand white phosphorus rounds.

Agreed 100%.

Obama has enough sense to see he doesn't want to get in that fight with all of the other crap on his plate. Bunch of dumb, redneck, right wing nut jobs driving the cost of ammo up. It used to be going out shooting was a good, cheap way to spend a Saturday. Now, Going out shooting for an hour will cost you 50-60$ in ammo. It's crazy, for almost a year a bunch of plaid clad, Copenhagen chewing, clowns where waiting in Wal-Mart every day that ammo came in waiting to buy up the whole load, and the isn't an exaggeration. Guys were buying 2-3k in ammo, and emptying the shelf. I didn't shoot my .45 for over a year because I couldn't find a box of ammo for under 40$. (for those who don't shoot, it used to cost about 11-12$)

Gun prices are the same. Every paranoid nut job out there is buying up everything with a mag that hold more than 10 rounds; thinking the big scary black man in office is going to ban them again. You used to be able to grab up M1As and M4 type rifles for well under a grand. Now a cheap M1A will run you 1300$. If you want to buy guns, go for it, but please limit yourself, and try to stop your paranoia from driving the cost through the roof for the rest of us.

not disagreeing that some panic buying as taken place, but commodity prices have gone up dramatically in the last few years. If lead, copper, steel, aluminum, etc. go up dramatically in price, so will the items that use those commodities.

"Today," subby?

Bag of Hammers: Mearen: You can't expand rights you already have. Even if the gubment tried to take away said rights, they were always yours.

Well, previously to Obama, you couldn't take your guns into a National Park, now you can, if you don't want to call that an expansion of gun rights then call it what you will.

mdeesnuts:
As Mearen stated rights are not given or granted. They are an inherent part of being a living sentient being.

Unlike the clip vs magazine argument the distinction between rights vs priviledges is an important one that should be well understood by everyone.

Unfortunately the term 'rights' is far too often used to describe a privledge.

Just because the government regularly craps on my rights does not mean they do not exist. I expect an apology after someone takes their boot off my neck, not an expectation of thanks for 'expanding my comfort'.

wee: It makes elections tough for me.

I write in a vote for "The guy with the smallest dick, since I'm about to get raped for the next 4 years no matter who wins."

Callous: Got a citation? Not that I don't believe you, I have seen that number before and just want to make note of it.

Not handy and not GISing that from my liberal leaning government contractor job.

It's from a study done in FL IIRC.

ChuDogg: /you're allowed to correlate when the subject matters are related

Only after you do a rigorous statistical analysis and show no other correlations. And even then, you have to be careful.

To be precise, correlation of A and B in a related domain can indicate any of the following:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. A and B are both caused by an external C
4. Coincidence

Correlation is a hint, not a proof.

Comment

HotWingConspiracy: Given that guns do not kill people, selling them to anyone willing to buy doesn't present any problems. Now if those people act inappropriately, they're clearly not very responsible and deserve punishment.


In a very general sense, yes, this is true. But you didn't use a general sense. You used for your example an organization formed and operated specifically to violate the law - and a foreign organization which gets most of it's arms through illegal means from a foreign military to begin with. Our gun laws are of no consequence to them practically, legally (until they come here) and philosophically. That's why your sarcastic example was spurious, and has nothing to do with legitimate firearm sales to normal citizens here in the US for self defense (in small part against minions of aforementioned cartels) and other reasons.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I support the Republicans, but I think the democrats 'winning' their points is more dangerous.

Why?

First, a lot of the democratic goals are 'good' or feel like they are helping someone. I've had arguments with staunch democrats regarding 'Good' laws that we both agree are beneficial and something that the government probably should be doing.

The problem is that I've found many people feel that being 'good' is cause enough to allow the government to do it, even if it 'technically' violates the Constitution. Their argument tends to be along the lines that 'It's something we need to do, but it's too hard to change the Constitution in today's age, so interpretations of the constitution that allow this 'good' law to exist are the correct interpretations.'

It's terribly frightening because the entire point of setting up a hard to change Constitution was to be a protection so that when we decided that we 'need' the government to do something, if it was something that was literally a 'need' then necessity would ensure that we would be willing to go through the effort to amend the Constitution.

Instead, too many people now feel that 'good to do' is justification enough for the Government to have the power to do it. The problem with that system is that it requires a mechanism to ensure that the power is just used for the 'good to do' and that the cost of implementing the 'good to do' is given sufficient consideration. Neither of those are the case. For a malleable Constitution to work, a great number of protections from government abuse need to be implemented. The Bill of Rights is exceptionally insufficient to preserve freedom if you go by the premise of a government power in the form of 'permission granted, unless specifically prohibited'.

It's the whole issue with enumerated powers vs enumerated limitations. If you allow the government to operate from the basis of 'enumerated limitations' you HAVE to enumerate those limitations and ensure that they are sufficient.

Based on that, I can't really support the majority of any 'good' federal laws proposed by either party. I'd like to as many do agree with things I would like to see done, but if we are going to do it, we need to do it right.

mdeesnuts: Mavent: Democrats understand that mouth-breathing hillbillies are never going to vote for them under anyway.

Personally, I view gun ownership on the same level as child porn- I couldn't care less if you've never actually harmed anyone else, I just think you're a creepy bastard for having that particular hobby.

You forgot to throw in a penis comment, but I'll give you creativity points for the child porn comparison. B-


Not too long ago I was introduced to a friend of a friend... I thought she was an obnoxious big mouth when I met her, but everything was going just fine until she started blathering on about how, "The only people who should be allowed to have guns are cops. Anyone who likes guns is terrifying to me. They're mentally ill and they should all be rounded up and thrown in the loony bin. People who like guns are sick, disgusting people." That is almost verbatim.

I told her that was a very ignorant thing to say and she totally lost her shiat and started yelling at me. How dare I call her stupid (which, I didn't, I just said that she had said something ignorant... which she had. The part which was her being stupid was not knowing what the word ignorant means.), she couldn't possibly be ignorant about this because her dad used to be in the military (lolwut?), blah blah blah blah...

I'm always surprised that the NRA doesn't do a reverse thinking of the Brady Campaign: 99.9% of victims of violent crimes did not own a gun.

Yes, I have a CWP/CCP. No, I don't carry all the time.

Richard Flaccid: Comment


[img833.imageshack.us image 320x320]

No, I can't guess which one.

jbuist: mdeesnuts: Just because the government regularly craps on my rights does not mean they do not exist. I expect an apology after someone takes their boot off my neck, not an expectation of thanks for 'expanding my comfort'.

Damn. Can I quote that in the future? Who would you like it attributed to?

When quoteing random farkers, I like to do double plagiarization by attributing the quote to either of the Ender's Game charcters Demosthenes or Locke.

That or Random Farker(tm). mdeesnuts just doesn't have a scholarly ring to it... I really need a new handle.

spelling dammit!

Stabone33: 0/10 Troll fail. Should have gone with the militia/KKK angle.

Duly noted.

mdeesnuts: As Mearen stated rights are not given or granted. They are an inherent part of being a living sentient being.

...because the magic Rights Fairy shows up to protect you if your neighbor decides to shoot you, steal your stuff, and rape your wife.

Seriously, where do you idiots get the idea that there's any such thing as "inherent rights"? The only rights you have are those that society provides for you. Take a trip to Somalia sometime soon and tell me about all the "rights" you have as "a living sentient being".

Guns are icky. They need to be banned. All neightborhoods would just as safe as my majority white suburban neighborhood that voted for Obama whose school district line just happens to end right before the minority one and just happens to have very poor alternatives transportation to cars where I live in my mom's basement if there were no evil guns.

...because the magic Rights Fairy shows up to protect you if your neighbor decides to shoot you, steal your stuff, and rape your wife.

Seriously, where do you idiots get the idea that there's any such thing as "inherent rights"? The only rights you have are those that society provides for you. Take a trip to Somalia sometime soon and tell me about all the "rights" you have as "a living sentient being".

Better...trolling for the Constitutional argument. But the Somalia part opens you up to false equivalency comebacks.

Stabone33: Better...trolling for the Constitutional argument. But the Somalia part opens you up to false equivalency comebacks.

It's also played out and retarded.

beta_plus: Guns are icky. They need to be banned. All neightborhoods would just as safe as my majority white suburban neighborhood that voted for Obama whose school district line just happens to end right before the minority one and just happens to have very poor alternatives transportation to cars where I live in my mom's basement if there were no evil guns.

notsureifserious.jpg

I would more wonder what the point of CCW is.
Those who register are unlikely to commit crimes, much less gun related crimes. Those who don't register just can't be bothered and will probably carry without a license the same as they would have before.

Aside from generating cash through the licensing process, and clarifying the already obvious statistics, the end result is unchanged.
You could have just allowed unlicensed carry and saved everyone the paperwork.

I guess I am EVIL, for believing in personal responsibility.

As long as they are lawful citizens, I could care fark all as to what they do.

Mavent: mdeesnuts: As Mearen stated rights are not given or granted. They are an inherent part of being a living sentient being.

...because the magic Rights Fairy shows up to protect you if your neighbor decides to shoot you, steal your stuff, and rape your wife.

Seriously, where do you idiots get the idea that there's any such thing as "inherent rights"? The only rights you have are those that society provides for you. Take a trip to Somalia sometime soon and tell me about all the "rights" you have as "a living sentient being".

Way to miss the point. The rights exist, by they can be taken. The right to life is taken in the case of murder. The right to liberty is taken when any right is taken. The right to keep and bear arms is taken when citizens are prohibited from keeping or bearing arms.

Taking a right away does not cause the right to cease to exist, it removes the desired harmony between rights and interaction.

When individuals take rights from others, it is hopefully classed as a crime under the laws of the land. The action taken against the perpetrator by the government or by society in response is known as justice, and is not always correct.

When governments take rights from individuals, it is the duty of society to see that the actions and/or abilities of the government are changed in the future. This is known as not fearing your government.

A disparity between the law and the perceived social contract will create an erosion in the rule of law, which will hopefully lead to a change in the law, not the dispensing of wrong justice upon those whose rights were violated.

See firearms ownership, drug use, abortion/contraception, yo.

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ya know, Dems, your protestations that the Democratic Party no longer cares about gun control would be more plausible if gun control wasn't part of the Democratic party platform.

Firearms

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements - like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Well at least someone's thinking of the children.

Fatalities from automobiles occur about 1000 x more frequently per capita than from firearms. I shall propose an Automobile Ban. The reckless proliferation of automobiles is polluting our communities with their murder. And anyone can buy an automobile. Private sellers even advertise them on The Craig's List.

/thinking of the children.

This is a stupid argument, honestly.

You should ban children, since the common factor in both cases is that children are potentially harmed. Remove the kids, no problem. How about we ban children, and only allow them by special permit, for which an intelligence, financial, and mental fitness test is required in advance. If you're stupid, crazy, and/or can't support yourself, you can't have kids.

No, seriously...

You have to be licensed to drive automobiles, and demonstrate proficiency with them periodically; you must also license and prove you're maintaining cars, and there are all sorts of common-sense restrictions on both the cars and the drivers.

Both items are tools, certainly, but they are in no way equivalent. One is primarily designed as transport, and when operated safely is unlikely to bring harm. The other is designed primarily to bring harm or death to living things.

I am not worried about properly licensed and maintained guns, owned by responsible gun-owners. I am worried about people who stockpile weaponry and listen to too much talk radio and live in fear of the scary black man in the white house, or whatever other bogeyman is presented.

jvowles: Both items are tools, certainly, but they are in no way equivalent. One is primarily designed as transport, and when operated safely is unlikely to bring harm. The other is designed primarily to bring harm or death to living things.

I'd argue at they're still equivalent, or at least should be in the eyes of the law. A firearm, when operated safely, is equally unlikely to cause any (unintended) harm. Using a gun for its intended purpose of killing another human being can be perfectly legal and moral, just like using an automobile for its intended purpose of driving can be illegal and immoral if its route passes over an old lady. Both items are designed to accomplish tasks which are not inherently legal/illegal or moral/immoral, and just because guns are scarier or less common doesn't mean they should be treated any differently.

Like automobiles, power tools, and a million other household items, firearms are potentially dangerous if used improperly and can be deliberately used to inflict unlawful harm on another, but can also be employed safely and lawfully. Personally, I prefer my government to err on the side of personal liberty when it comes to determining whether people can have these things.

/Is it weird that the 9th Amendment is my favorite?

redmid17: None of the car restrictions apply to privately owned land or transporting cars (ie tow) on public roads

I have observed that many individuals who claim to advocate licensing firearm usage in the same fashion by which motor vehicle operation is currently licensed refuse to actually endorse a firearm usage licensing system that is entirely parallel to motor vehicle operation licensing and will instead advocate a significantly more restrictive licensing system for firearm operation -- including licensing for mere ownership, no allowance of carrying in public, no state reciprocity and licensing for individual firearms rather than for general firearm usage -- when further details are solicited. I have concluded, based upon this "bait and switch" argument, that many advocates of such licensing systems are dishonest.

Dimensio: I have observed

Dimensio: I have concluded

So long as your satisfied with what you've learned from those people.
Because it seems you've spoken to some of the few gun rights supporters who've said they desire more restrictions than they already have after complaining that they suffer from too much regulation and making an argument for less of it.
That's like having a medical marijuana supporter ask for the implementation of more bureaucratic red tape after using the best arguments for legalization.

More than a few people that I have talked with believe in the original intention of the 2nd amendment, and they don't feel that "Shall not be infringed" is coded legal speak for "...unless the infringement is creative enough that it will guile people into a false sense of security".
Because of their distrust in the federal governments ability to keep honest records, some of those even have problems with going so far as a background check.
I have concluded that going to a DMV style license system would suit most owners just fine.

/So long as you can convince them this isn't just a new scheme to scam people out of their rights.