Do You Support ANY Gun Control Laws?

[wolf_fire]

OK, I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT FOR DISCUSSION. I've skimmed the replies and didn't see (or missed) any comments regarding people who should NOT have guns. And I've known quite a few over the years! For example, in Michigan convicted felons are not allowed to possess firearms. How about people who are mentally ill? I mean, flat out nuts! Should they be able to walk into a gun store and pick up any gun they want? Or, how about a 14-year old child? What about foreigners? Of the Mideast persuasion for example? Should there be NO "background" checks at all? I mean if, as I believe, that the Second Amendment allows everyone to possess a firearm, doesn't that mean there ARE no restrictions. What say you all?

Yes. You got it correct. That is what the 2nd Amendment says. Now concerning the mentally ill. If you are, as you put it, "flat out nuts" you should be in a facility for treatment or your family should be taking care of you. The government has no business regulating our rights. About the felon, there are many people who have committed non-violent felonies and paid their debt to society. They should still have the rights, after paying their debt. The violent felon however should never be allowed back into society to do what they've done before. The 14 yo should be regulated by his/her parents and not the government. When the government regulates our rights, they no longer become rights, they become permissions by the government. Inalienable: It means unable to be taken away from the possessor. These rights are inalienable, since they were not granted by government, but our Creator. Therefore, they cannot be taken from us and we need to do all that we can to stop them from doing so. And the person who is not a citizen, but legally allowed to be here: If we have allowed them to be here, don't they possess the same basic rights endowed by our Creator? If they are illegally here, kick 'em out.

Are chainsaws lethal? Are hammers lethal? Are knives lethal? Are cars lethal? All of them are just as lethal as a gun in fact cars seem to be more lethal. Car fatalities are between 30-40k per year in this country. Maybe we should do background checks on them car owners before they purchase. Maybe we should have a psych eval first. You do not need to have a driver's license to purchase a car either. You only need one to drive it on the street. Anyone can go into any car dealer and purchase a car. They'll even deliver it to you if you don't have a license. One may even buy a car in another state than the one they live in. One can get a car with turbo boost, and a second gas tank. I've even some cars that can reach speeds of 200+ mph!!!! There is no need for any car to go that fast in this country!! *yes, denote the sarcasm*

We see things like this yet there are still some that believe we need more restrictions and more gun control... control against a right. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Gun control is not about controlling guns, it's about controlling people. If you started putting these types of restrictions on car owners, how much of a fight would there be in this country? And cars aren't even a Constitutional right.

 

[Kyredneck]

As far as Laws against Felons having firearms, I have always agreed with this. All my life growing up I was warned that if I commit a felony I would lose or give up certain rights, the right to vote and the right to own firearms to be some. These peoples rights were not taken, just like me they knew the risk but for what ever reason didn't care. So as I see it they GAVE up their rights, not had them TAKEN. I am 50, I have never been in handcuffs or been in the back of a squad car. This was not by luck but by choice. As to their debt to society being paid, I am sorry but no it has not. Part of that price has always been that if you commit a felony you give up your rights. As far as Laws for nuts or children, in a perfect world the nuts would be put away and children would be under the control of their parents. But we don't live in a perfect world. Nuts get guns and shoot children, and some parents don't know where their children were last night much less what they were doing. This is the world we live in.

 

[Rocketgeezer]

I generaly do not get involved with these endless debates, as each side has there opinion. but personaly I have to say just letting any person walk into a gun store and buy what ever they may want, with no questions asked is the most dumbass thing I have ever heard, I agree the laws they try to adapt now go way past stupid, but I cannot go along with allowing anyone without question to purchase firearms, and while true criminals will always get guns, I don't feel after serving time for armed robbery, that individual should be allowed by law to purchase a gun, having served his time or not, when the constitution and the second amendment were written it was not in the founding fathers wildest dreams that the world would turn out like it has, so things that were thought of, and the resulting laws and amendments just do not apply the same way

 

[whodat2710]

Murderers, child molesters, Pedophiles, rapists, wife beaters, violent criminals and other such scum forfeited their rights. I have no problem sending them back to prison for possession of firearms, I have no empathy for them and I support laws that do so.

Those people should not be out of prison in the first place. If we let them out, they should get their rights back. If they don't deserve their rights they should be under the prison.

 

[Deanimator]

when the constitution and the second amendment were written it was not in the founding fathers wildest dreams that the world would turn out like it has

So then:

• You believe that the 1st Amendment protects political speech in books and newspapers, but NOT on radio, television, and the internet?
• You believe that Blacks and Whites, and men and women should NOT be equal under the law?
• You believe that the 1st Amendment protects Catholics and Episcopalians, but NOT Mormons?

 

[whodat2710]

Charles,

Is that the same "Honest" Abe who sacrificed the very Constitution he seems to regard so highly simply to hold the Union together, an action of which was Constitutionally illegal in the context of removing States' Rights of Sovereignty? That Abe....? Nah... couldn't be him.

Sorry, this isn't personal but you've got it coming:

I love History. Not to get too far off topic, but if you look into it Lincoln was a white supremacist (see Lincoln/Douglas debates), the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves, and yes, he stomped on the Constitution worse than any other president... until now.

 

[Deanimator]

I am 50, I have never been in handcuffs or been in the back of a squad car. This was not by luck but by choice.

It was LARGELY by choice, but not COMPLETELY so.

Can you tell me what Richard Jewell did to find himself in the custody of the FBI? Please be detailed and take as much space as you need.

Of course you could end up DEAD rather than in handcuffs. Please explain concisely as well how the Atlanta PD ended up kicking in Kathryn Johnston's door.

 

[whodat2710]

The Mentally Ill cannot be allowed to own firearms.
Convicted Felons should not be permitted to own firearms.
If someone raped and beat your sister or your mother, upon their release from prison you really want them to be able to purchase a firearm? Not me.
And... I don't want my 11 year old to be able to purchase a firearm.

Gun control never stopped a gun crime. What it does is provide you, me, and the NRA with the statistics that Legal Gun Owners do not commit Gun crimes.

1. Seventy-eight percent of all shooting deaths are drug-, gang- or other criminal-related incidents committed with unregistered guns wielded by non-licensed criminals.

2. Eight percent are shootings by police or security personnel.

3. Less than 1 percent are shootings by legal gun owners committing a crime.

4. Six percent are legal gun owners protecting life, limb and property (homeowners, shop owners, etc.).

5. Eight percent are miscellaneous (suicide, hunting accidents, accidental discharges, etc.).


We, The Gun community know there really is no gun control. I buy everything I want when I can afford it. Big deal, a $5.00 fee.
We need the stats on our side or the Liberals will lie and lie, and lie as they always do, and all those Obama Phone toting liberals will really impact what we do.

No Mentally Ill
No Felons
No Kids

A very well thought out, Lucid argument. Unfortunately it is completely invalid. Which law do you think will actually prevent the above from happening? (hint, none will work, so we go back to the part where laws only effect law abiding citizens. )
-
Regarding kids owning guns, That's actually something to think about. They can work legally at 14-15, drive at 15-16, vote at 18, drink at 21. As the all knowing government, where would you place the infringement? How about we go back to personal accountability and parenting?

 

[whodat2710]

Convicted of a Felony. It will not stop them from getting a gun if they really want to, but it gives Law Enforcement more violations to convict them of if they decide to go back to a life of crime.

If they go back to a life of crime, why not just convict them of those crimes? Why do we need to invent more "charges" to convict someone of? So that maybe they can stay in prison longer? What we need is fewer LAWYERS, fewer laws and fewer loopholes that let undeniably guilty offenders walk. We also need to make sure we have plenty of room in our prisons. Get rid of "mandatory minimums" (get caught for 3 misdemeanors and you end up taking up valuable prison space). We need to also seriously reevaluate the benefits to society when you house, feed, provide cable TV and other conveniences to someone that has been sentenced to life or multiple life sentences. But instead we fund sex changes and sterile needles for lethal injections.

 

[Kramer1113]

So what you are saying then is you put your time and money into making sure we have candidates who will make sure there is more gun control? You have mentioned more than once that you want to make sure there is gun control for the mentally ill and the felon. Since you assume I do nothing to help actually maintain our rights, I guess I will need to do that much more since there are gun owners like yourself who are doing all they can to usurp the rights of the citizenry. How dare you come on here and assume that since we post (like you do) that we do not do anything else? Why do you make this a personal issue against me, when it is a very real issue against our Constitution?

Kramer, please tell me why you have the 2nd Amendment in bright red lettering as your signature line? Is it there to remind everyone on the forum what our right actually is? If this is the reason, and you are staunchly behind it, could you then please tell me why you throw your money at candidates who will regulate a right, not just any right, but the only one that states, "... shall NOT be infringed."?

Wolf_fire Seriously man, Take a couple of pills.

Your like the Jessie Jackson of USA Carry. I do not give time and money to "Gun Control Advocates". However, I do support the current FEDERAL Gun control laws.
Most people have a problem with their state laws, Not Federal.

You advocate keeping Felons in prison forever.

Did you say that?

No, but you implied that when you said if they haven't been rehabilitated they should not be released. Almost No One gets rehabilitated in prison, so if I want to put words in your mouth, You Said That.

Yes wolf_fire Do More Work. You want to preach and bi+ch about gun laws, I should see you on the nightly news as being the Darn David Duke of the 2nd.

My interpretation of the 2nd allows for All people to bear arms. By all you have the same basic restrictions as you would to be able to Vote in this country. I do not believe the 2nd to be a broad brush to cover anyone from cradle to grave. Our Founding Fathers were much smarter than that.

I am not going to change my views based on your rants. I will however support any laws you are able to change. I have experienced far to much to hand a firearm to anyone.
I'm shocked that any gun owner who has any experience at all would advocate that we allow anyone who does not understand that it is wrong to shoot or kill another human being a gun. Seriously? How can you advocate this?

I don't have open carry in Florida. Janet Reno saw to that. I haven't seen anyone in years try to change it. The Open carry law was the first reason I joined the NRA, they were going to fight to return that right to Florida residents... Ya, that's been years. But I continue to support them.

wolf_fire, Change the law and you will change my mind. Otherwise your beating on your keyboard is about useless.

However, as a prior service member I do support your right to waste my time.

 

[gunnerbob]

I keep seeing the recurrent theme of people who support firearms restrictions that they don't believe anyone and everyone should have a weapon... 99.9% of everyone here agrees with this, however... the difference is, the gov't should not be the one enforcing this. Responsible citizens, 99.9% of the time, do not give or sell "criminals" firearms... at least not knowingly. A million laws can't and won't prevent those in society who are already immoral from giving/selling firearms to peoples' who aren't fit to responsibly own one to begin with. This is the issue we're really discussing, or should be... not whether a mentally ill individual/criminal type should be "legally" allowed to own a firearm but rather, that the gov't is the least efficient at deciding who falls into this category and enforcing it.

Anytime the gov't has a monopoly on something, it abuses and/or ruins whatever it is altogether. The 2A is such a delicate established recognition of the inalienable Right to self-defense against the government itself, that allowing any infringement upon this Right will no doubt lead to an eventual non-recognition of this right by the gov't. History proves this, over and over again... there is no denying this fact. If you don't agree with it or don't think that can happen here b/c this is America, you are doing so out of willful ignorance. However appropriate you may feel our current firearms laws are, you are failing to recognize that it's the responsible individual that keeps firearms in the hands of the right people and not law X, Y or Z. The proof is in the pudding... if laws were effective at preventing crimes, we would never have another. Obviously, this is not happening... nor will it ever. By restricting and reducing the ability of law-abiding people's the ability to effectively defend themselves and family you'll not only strengthen the criminals themselves but facilitate the eventual return of a once true free nation back to a tyrannical land.

I understand this all sounds extreme but you have to look at the broader picture of time and not just your own personal experience in this life. In time, as people allow their rights to be unrecognized... it will be eventually criminalized by gov't. Governments by nature are tyrannical, in whatever form they originally start out as... they all eventually lead to oppression b/c humans have very short memories and with every new century comes new comforts, however simplistic they may seem to us, now.

The eventual conclusion of a lazy people is servitude. Choose not to believe it at your own peril... The power and responsibility must always remain with the people, otherwise... the people become irrelevant.

That's why I do not support any firearms restrictions of any kind.

 

[wolf_fire]

Wolf_fire Seriously man, Take a couple of pills.

Your like the Jessie Jackson of USA Carry. I do not give time and money to "Gun Control Advocates". However, I do support the current FEDERAL Gun control laws.
Most people have a problem with their state laws, Not Federal.

You advocate keeping Felons in prison forever.

Did you say that? No I said keep violent felons in prison forever or use capital punishment. Non-violent felons after their time is served have repaid their debt to society and should enjoy the same rights as any free person.

No, but you implied that when you said if they haven't been rehabilitated they should not be released. Almost No One gets rehabilitated in prison, so if I want to put words in your mouth, You Said That. I agree that VIOLENT felons don't usually get rehabilitated, which is why I differentiated between violent and non-violent several times.

Yes wolf_fire Do More Work. You want to preach and bi+ch about gun laws, I should see you on the nightly news as being the Darn David Duke of the 2nd. I didn't think I was preaching. I thought I was advocating for not having our rights diminished into privileges.

My interpretation of the 2nd allows for All people to bear arms. how about keeping them? If you agree that "All people are allowed to KEEP and bear arms" then why are you for governmental restrictions on who is and who is not allowed?? This is oxymoronic.By all you have the same basic restrictions as you would to be able to Vote in this country. I do not believe the 2nd to be a broad brush to cover anyone from cradle to grave. Our Founding Fathers were much smarter than that. then why did our forefathers put "shall not be infringed" on just this one right?

I am not going to change my views based on your rants. I didn't realize defending my rights was a "rant", but since you say so, I guess it must be so. I will however support any laws you are able to change. I have experienced far to much to hand a firearm to anyone. that's your choice NOT the governments, and I respect and applaud your choice. I do not respect the choice allowing our government to take away that choice by being the be all and end all on who is allowed to exercise their right under the 2nd Amendment.
I'm shocked that any gun owner who has any experience at all would advocate that we allow anyone who does not understand that it is wrong to shoot or kill another human being a gun. Seriously? How can you advocate this? You really should work in a pretzel factory since you obviously know how to twist things from what actually was said. I have never advocated giving a person a gun who cannot function. What I have advocated, and I'll say it again and type slowly so you can get my point is the GOVERNMENT should NOT be the one to CONTROL who is and who is not allowed. I cannot believe that anyone would agree to have the government making social and moral decisions about who should and should not be allowed to exercise a right.

I don't have open carry in Florida. Janet Reno saw to that. I haven't seen anyone in years try to change it. The Open carry law was the first reason I joined the NRA, they were going to fight to return that right to Florida residents... Ya, that's been years. But I continue to support them. Excellent keep up the good fight and keep fighting.

wolf_fire, Change the law and you will change my mind. Otherwise your beating on your keyboard is about useless. I've been trying ... believe me I've been trying, regardless of what you've said about me in previous posts.

However, as a prior service member I do support your right to waste my time.

What does being a prior service member have to do with squat? So you served? Great. Many more have here on this forum. Whether you served or not, the first amendment still applies as it has with you when you state that you are advocating for the government to control who is and who is not allowed to exercise a right. BTW, Air Force vet myself.... and I'm extremely proud I served and proud of all those that served our country in many various capacities, including you, but "whoopee", it doesn't mean a thing in the context of this discussion.

You are correct however. None of us is going to change each other's minds. This much is obvious. We are arguing from two different platforms. You have vehemently agreed to the government limiting rights, whereas I do not.

 

[jeff martin]

The Second Amendment doesn't allow for any arms restrictions, Federal or State!! Territories had to accept The Constitution as the supreme law of the land in order to become a State!! Criminal acts are commited by People regardless of law. So any restriction has No Effect on a determined criminal!! Only good people get restricted!! No infringement means none at all!!

The Second Amendment protects All Rights!!

 

[Bikenut]

For those who are stuck on the idea that there should be laws so neither nuts nor felons would be "allowed" to have guns..........

Without being a jerk or even trying to be a jerk let me say....

IF the law actually prevented nuts and felons from getting guns the premise that having laws that don't "allow" nuts and felons to have guns would be valid but since History has shown time and time again felons and nuts simply ignore the law no matter how many laws there are makes the argument that nuts and felons should not be "allowed" to have/buy/carry guns ... pointless.

Ok.... now maybe there is a quite a bit of my being a jerk in the following unashamed rant... got that?... it's an opinionated rant and if your feathers are easily ruffled... umm.. I do not shive a git.

In my not so humble opinion.............

People who believe that gun control laws will make them safer have the same mind set of those in days gone by who believed the witch doctor could make them safe from lighting by chanting gibberish and shaking some doll at the sky. Both think something that is a natural part of nature itself (lightening and the glaringly obvious fact that criminals do not give a fart in a windstorm about any laws that say they aren't "allowed") can be controlled by some magical chant... whether that chant is from the lips of a witch doctor or is a chant written on paper called a "law". But facing the facts of reality shows that History itself has proven that the witch doctor doesn't control lightning and gun control laws do not control criminals and/or nuts.

And, sad to say, I also think there are those who believe the only reason that "chant" (law) written on paper hasn't worked is because they just haven't yet figured out the right magical chant.

Instead of hoping to find magical chants that make people "feel good".... how about we actually address the real problem of criminals and nuts being free in a society rich in the availability of even more victims for those criminals and nuts to prey upon and not only put them where they have no access to victims but keep them where they have no access to victims. How about we do the logical thing and put the criminals who use weapons (of any kind!) to harm others in prison and keep them there... perhaps even executing those who commit the most heinous crimes... because (and here is some stone cold logic) if they are in prison or dead they will not harm another innocent victim because they have no access to those who would be their victims...

And how about we use that same concept of isolating the violent from society by hospitalizing the violent nuts and not letting them out either.

Want to actually prevent felons and nuts from harming more innocent people? Stop trying to control their guns and put them where their access to more victims is controlled. (I know... more stone cold logic that no one likes).

But then.... that is just too logical... it doesn't feed the emotions like it does to rely on magical chants written on paper called laws so folks can "feel safe" and spend their lives wondering why those chants don't work? And spend their lives searching for just one more chant... just one more... and maybe that one will hit the magic lottery and actually finally work.

 

[wolf_fire]

WAYYY too many anti-gun control types live in fantasyland. They address complex issues like gun control (or not) based on the world as they wish it to be, not the way it is, and they make constitutional pronouncements based on simplistic slogans that have taken on a life of their own on the internet but which have no grounding in history, law, or common sense. The gun control crowd, misguided as they are, is going to win in the long run (which will start with the likely 2015 democrat majority in the House) because they marshal their arguments and evidence better and have a less flawed grasp of history and constitutional analysis than vocal grass roots gun owners.

People who feel passionately about something don't like to be told that they might be on the wrong track, and that the ends--however correct--sometimes can't survive the means of achieving them. It's time for gun owners to stop the puerile name-calling, bickering, demonizing of those with reasoned alternative opinions, and indulging in nonsensical, highly-publicized rhetoric that only plays into the hands of the Bloombergs of this country (e.g., "if they come for my guns all they're gonna get is a lot of bullets.") Time for some brutal reassessment, I think.

I feel passionately for the Constitution, so much so I volunteered for military service. I have also volunteered in our Sheriff's Reserve Division. Twice I have taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. You, however, have voted on this poll that you think our 2nd Amendment right, the only right to say "shall not be infringed" should have restrictions, in other words, infringements. This goes against my oaths and therefore I must defend them. If you think that is being puerile, I'm sorry for you. I think it takes a hell of a man to stand up for principle as opposed to being wrapped in defeatism as you seem to be by your statement about the next elections. I will continue to raise awareness of our rights being stripped from us. I will continue to bend the ears of my legislators, governors, and presidents past/present/future about the eroding of our rights and to have them be restored. If this is silly and childish to you, again, I'm sorry for you.

 

[Bikenut]

WAYYY too many anti-gun control types live in fantasyland. They address complex issues like gun control (or not) based on the world as they wish it to be, not the way it is, and they make constitutional pronouncements based on simplistic slogans that have taken on a life of their own on the internet but which have no grounding in history, law, or common sense. The gun control crowd, misguided as they are, is going to win in the long run (which will start with the likely 2015 democrat majority in the House) because they marshal their arguments and evidence better and have a less flawed grasp of history and constitutional analysis than vocal grass roots gun owners.

People who feel passionately about something don't like to be told that they might be on the wrong track, and that the ends--however correct--sometimes can't survive the means of achieving them. It's time for gun owners to stop the puerile name-calling, bickering, demonizing of those with reasoned alternative opinions, and indulging in nonsensical, highly-publicized rhetoric that only plays into the hands of the Bloombergs of this country (e.g., "if they come for my guns all they're gonna get is a lot of bullets.") Time for some brutal reassessment, I think.

Who is living in fantasy land? Those who understand that gun control doesn't control criminal human beings who ignore gun control? Or those who ignore History and think gun control words on paper will control a criminal human being from having a gun?

So tell me how gun control has controlled violent felons and nuts from committing yet another crime while using a gun?

All the gun control laws there are have not prevented schools from being shot up... have they? Be honest... have they?

All the gun control laws there are have not prevented any convicted felon that wanted a gun from getting a gun.. have they? Be honest... have they?

All the gun control laws there are have so far not prevented any nuts from getting guns either.... have they? Be honest... have they?

The fact is... of all .. of the gun control laws we have not one gun control law that has prevented nuts or criminals from getting guns and killing innocents so clearly gun control laws are not the answer..... is the message that needs to be focused on.

 

[Kramer1113]

What does being a prior service member have to do with squat? So you served? Great. Many more have here on this forum. Whether you served or not, the first amendment still applies as it has with you when you state that you are advocating for the government to control who is and who is not allowed to exercise a right. BTW, Air Force vet myself.... and I'm extremely proud I served and proud of all those that served our country in many various capacities, including you, but "whoopee", it doesn't mean a thing in the context of this discussion.

You are correct however. None of us is going to change each other's minds. This much is obvious. We are arguing from two different platforms. You have vehemently agreed to the government limiting rights, whereas I do not.

Here is the part you keep missing:

I support the Law of the land.
IF
You are able to change the law,
I
Will support the law of the land.
I
Will sign your Petitions,
I
Will support your candidate, and
I
Will more than likely financially back your candidate.
You
Need to take the first steps in making it happen.
How about,
You begin by financially supporting
USA Carry, Just Like
I
Do. :victory:

 

[gunnerbob]

WAYYY too many anti-gun control types live in fantasyland. They address complex issues like gun control (or not) based on the world as they wish it to be, not the way it is, and they make constitutional pronouncements based on simplistic slogans that have taken on a life of their own on the internet but which have no grounding in history, law, or common sense. The gun control crowd, misguided as they are, is going to win in the long run (which will start with the likely 2015 democrat majority in the House) because they marshal their arguments and evidence better and have a less flawed grasp of history and constitutional analysis than vocal grass roots gun owners.

People who feel passionately about something don't like to be told that they might be on the wrong track, and that the ends--however correct--sometimes can't survive the means of achieving them. It's time for gun owners to stop the puerile name-calling, bickering, demonizing of those with reasoned alternative opinions, and indulging in nonsensical, highly-publicized rhetoric that only plays into the hands of the Bloombergs of this country (e.g., "if they come for my guns all they're gonna get is a lot of bullets.") Time for some brutal reassessment, I think.

In reference to everything you typed:

Are you kidding me...? No, of course you're not... b/c you're... you. You're a liberal who believes himself to be superior to the majority on this forum out of an absolute delusion of what it means to take an oath seriously. It doesn't matter how smart you think you are, you're wrong if you think that laws prevent action. Wrong, wrong, wrong... just so wrong I'm astonished you made it three decades of service to the Constitution without burning it, or did you?

Another thing, do you really believe that those of us who stand on principled grounds of Individual Liberty and a hatred for tyranny are going to just drop our guns, belief and way of life b/c... the gov't said so? Now who's living in fantasy land?

Piss off, Admiral...

 

[jeff martin]

The law of the land is, The Second Amendment!! So simple!! Why do basic law abiding citizens have to be constantly harrassed into proving they're not criminal or crazy? And who gets to decide you're mental situation?? The government?? No Infringement!!

The Second Amendment protects All Rights!!

 

[wolf_fire]

Here is the part you keep missing:

I support the Law of the land.
IF
You are able to change the law,
I
Will support the law of the land.
I
Will sign your Petitions,
I
Will support your candidate, and
I
Will more than likely financially back your candidate.
You
Need to take the first steps in making it happen.
How about,
You begin by financially supporting
USA Carry, Just Like
I
Do. :victory:

And the part you are missing, I do not support the law of the land when it is UNConstitutional. I may abide by it, but I will NEVER support it. I will do what it takes, and have, to try to change it. And I will never understand someone who does support it. So we have come to the inevitable impasse. Neither of us will understand either's position. I will not support UNConstitutional laws, and you have admittedly agreed that you do.