Sensible gun control is about on the same level of stupidity as paying

[dont-blameme]

your fair share~! Who decides, what is sensible!?  Who decides what is fair~?

[caserio1]

caserio, who else?

[chuck_curtis]

To the anti-guns nuts, "sensible" (don't you just love how they latch onto the established terms?) gun control is what the peons in the UK, Canada, France, and other places have to put up with.  They praise that.  They want that here.

[sweetwater5s9]

The Constitution spells out sensible gun control - "Shall not be infringed".   Stick with it, they were right.

[dont-blameme]

You think maybe a liberal will explain sensible and fair share without stuttering slobbering and tripping over the words~?

[chuck_curtis]

They have explained it the only way they know how.  They point to other places that have it, and smile (like Clinton did at the debate last night).

[caserio1]

you pay for the "accidental" deaths in full

[jst-the-fax]

Judging from those who have committed the most gun crimes...sensible gun control would be prohibiting registered democrats and negroes from possessing a firearm. 

[wvit1001]

stricter gun regulations are coming faxy. 

[1965hawks]

Not surprisingly, dont-blameme, chuck_curtis, sweetwater5s9, and all the other so-called pro-gun rights activists in our forum are vehemently opposed to any suggestion that the United states enact sensible gun laws like those enacted by the world's other advanced nations. Unlike the citizens (not peons) of UK, Canada, France, Japan, and Australia who live in countries where gun violence is the exception rather than the rule,  Americans would rather allow its epidemic gun violence to continue unabated . There's absoluttly nothing in the Second Amendment that prohibits Congress to enact common-sense gun laws.   

[caserio1]

besides

who can get excited about killing a few kids ?

[sweetwater5s9]

The Constitution spells out sensible gun control - "Shall not be infringed".   Stick with it, the founders and the Constitution are right.