If liberals are ok with people having guns, why then is it nearly impossible...

As well as those who are celebrities, transport large amounts of cash in the course of their employment, are judges, or who have high-level political connections. Regular, ordinary, everyday citizens, however, are not so fortunate and are routinely denied, often because they have failed to pass the "good reason" test for justifying why they should be allowed to defend themselves from harm.

The FBI has uncovered widespread corruption with the issuing of firearm permits in the state of New York, with permits being issued to individuals who provided large bribes to issuing officers, even when said individuals had disqualifying criminal records that precluded them from legal firearms ownership to begin with.

 

I will have guns or any other weapon I choose whether it is legal or not.

 

So, only the rich can have permits. What’s wrong with that ? They need them to protect their huge fortunes from the gargantuan tax cuts they got from the right. Thought you’d be in favor of that.

 

No you won’t....unless you decide to become a criminal.

 

What exactly is right with such being the case?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand and off topic.

What is favored are fact. Simple, unbiased, relevant facts. Facts are the only thing that truly matter.

 

I was always under the impression that conservatives fk over the poor. No healthcare, no guns, no work.

 

The typical response when you’ve been burned by the facts.

 

i already have been one and I state again. I will have any firearm I wish whether the govt. allows me to or not. It is my Constitutional right. You want to cower and kneel be my guest.

 

I’m not impressed.

 

I don't care.

 

You do or you wouldn’t have said it.

 

Six of one, half a dozen of another.

 

Fair enough.

My rights are whatever enough of my peers willing to fight to the death to protect make too much trouble to enforce restriction of. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't one of them. Access to effective self defense, thus far, is.

 

Not really.......the number of times the average gun owner uses a firearm for self defense, isn’t even consequential. It’s an illusion.

 

Not sure what that has to do with it being impossible to disarm 10s of millions of gun owners because they would use their guns to resist disarmament, creating a right whether its agreed upon or not...

 

Pray tell, precisely what is being stated on the part of yourself this time? Is it being stated that not enough individuals use firearms in their own defense, for such to be considered as a valid argument in support of legal firearms ownership?

 

My sources are smarter then yours, always have been.

 

Such is not the question that was presented. The question that was presented pertains to just what is being stated on the part of yourself this time? Clarify the previous statement made on the part of yourself.

 

It’s clear to avid readers of the truth.

 

If such were the case then clarification would not be sought. And as nothing but stubborn resistance and outright refusal has been presented in response to clarification of the above point being sought, there is no option left but to assume the above statement on the part of yourself is that not enough private individuals are defending themselves with firearms, for the private ownership of firearms to be considered legally justified. Suggesting that if a right is not used enough times in a given year, then it can be removed from the people in response.

Such is the only logical conclusion that can be reached based on the lack of information presented on the part of yourself in such an obstinate manner. That not enough legal firearm owners are killing attackers to justify their ownership of firearms continuing to remain legal. Thus suggesting there is a minimum quota that must be met for a constitutional right to remain held by the people.

If such is not what was being stated on the part of yourself, such is too bad. The lack of cooperation on the part of yourself has ensured that such is the position that has been assigned to yourself in response. Try harder at clarification next time, rather than deliberate vagueness.

 

Who cares, you are no one special?

 

Once again and as usual, you have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

Never going to happen the OP lacking any facts lives on vaugeness and insults.

 

They certainly do.

 

In other words: you have the right connections.

Of course...some places (several counties in Massachusetts, offhand) simply reject ALL permit applications.