Steve

What's wrong with IDs right? Absolutely nothing. My main issue however is this. The reasoning behind it is to stop voter fraud. A non existent problem according ot the stats. The result of the ID laws, which has been proven, is that it reduced the number of people who would have actually voted. Its insiduous. The reason the ID laws are being enacted is to reduce the number of people voting, specifically voters who usually vote for the opposition. There is no other reason. Its so completely unAmerican to make a law for that purpose. So, while I like it in theory, I don't in practice. I would love for full participation in an election even if I knew from polling data my guy would not win. I truly would want that. i want a full participatory electorate. Because my hope is that they will eventually be an informed electorate. In time, we will be a better, stronger nation if more people participated in our Republic.

Unfortunately no, not for the most part. Human nature is human nature. We will always find something to disagree on and always find something different and instead of celebrating that difference as a species history has taught us we fear or hate those differences. Doesn't matter if its physical (race) or not (religion), as a general rule we do that to each other. I recall the movie and the book 'Contact' and in the book the aliens thought we were overdo for exterminating each other. That given our history and species its a wonder we haven't blown each other up and some other species emerges and takes over. As a species it may be a matter of when not if we end up killing each other off in some manner or form (war, pestilence, we develop some sort of biotechnical germ and end ourselves, global warming that we initiate, influenza). In all liklihood it won't be natural (asteroid impact, etc.)

Blacks and mainly Mexicans dont get along in LA. Its actually different in the Bay area and San Diego. They get along there. Latinos comprise the prison population in power now and its all down to numbers. They often start riots in prisons to show the Blacks who is in control. In the past, Black gang members of different sets (groups) like bloods and crips didnt socialize and had to be separated now, all the black gangs cling together for self preservatioin and protection because of the sheer numbers of the Latinos. Its primarily the LA mexican gangsters. Non mexican inmates from El Salvador and other countries dont like or get along with the LA Mexcian gangs but they have the numbers . Very different than how I grew up, we got along very well with the Puerto Ricans and later the Dominicans with a few Cubans scattered about. Its not only Compton but Watts, traditionally known as the Black ghetto of LA is now majority latino. South Central is mostly latino. The only 'Black' neighborhoods are the middle class ones in Windsor Hills,etc that are near South Central and those are actually being re-gentrified by young, white, liberals who are priced out of the white neighborhoods. The homes in these Black middle class areas are very nice, much cheaper and safe. The cops don't let anything happen in these areas, there are many neighborhood associations. I lived in one such neighborhood with my uncle in Inglewood. He told me to come to the next neighborhood cook out so they can see my face so when I walk around no one calls the cops.

Been the same about the election since it started. The top 4 or 5 swing states are the most important. 40 of the 50 states are pretty much decided. The electoral worked when the country was founded. What the founders didn't assume was that we would form political parties. As for the Republican changes, I'd be just as vehementally against if it were Democrats. It leaves voters disefranchised and their votes counted less. The present system does it as well but this proposal exasperates the problem. A viable third party won't make it unless one of two things happen. Its truly grassroots and takes hold or is financed by one or more the uber rich such as Perot's Reform Party. We saw how the Republicans tried to keep Johnson and others off the ballot in swing states. It will happen again. Some Dems will try the same. The powers that and this not only includes both parties but the lobbyists dont want it The last thing the lobbyists want is to have to try and bribe a third party and see their power diluted. And they certainly don't want a 3rd party with some integrity. They can't be bought. Flash is right that both parties have been guilty of manipulation in the past, Democrats in big urban centers in particular. However, the past doesn't excuse the actions of the present and right now its mainly the Repubicans doing the most repugnant, anti American things. Also, you have a bunch of house Republicans who have this Don Quixote, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington mentality to save the country and the Congress and in reality all they are doing is just opposing ANYTHING that goes against their ideology with no room for compromise. The government simply can't run without some compromise. They are used to weak willed Dems in the past (and present) and think if they are obstinate enough they will eventually get their way and spin it in the press that they are saving America from itself.

I think we ought to re-think the electoral college system. However, the motives behind these proposed changes by some Republican led states isn't to modernize the process. Its to rig elections in thier favor. First gerrymandering districts, voter registration laws to reduce Dem votes and now this. The Republican party, at least a signficant number of the party and their leadership, who claim to be what America is about truly are the most un-American. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/25/politics/electoral-college/?hpt=po_c1

Obama is gonna fck Wall Street for switching sides. First time ever, a prosecutor is nominated to be in charge of the SEC. A prosecutor with experience going after Wall Street malfeasance. Its gonna get interesting. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/24/mary-jo-white-SEC-chairman/ Things are going to get real interesting. I think we are going to see a more liberal/progressive Obama.

From a PR perspective, its not a good look for a major business to do that. Small businesses, fine, but a major company will get bad press. They'll play along or use their lobbies to get exceptions. Obamacare ended up watered down and costing the Dems their super majority in 10 off year elections. It gave Republicans something they could hammer Obama with even when his popularity was super high. If he worked on the economy first and used the super majority to get some massive infrastructure spending and create jobs perhaps the Dems could have kept their super majority and deal with health care in the 2nd half of his first 4 years or in re-election. I thought there were some good PR stuff Obama could have done such as the TSA issue at airports. Reducing Gitmo by releasing inmates whose information would have been dated and posed little future threat. Anyway, he's definitely more aggressive in somethings now that he doesnt have to face an election. He's seeming more left of center now.

My question is had McCain been elected would the number of people on food stamps, unemployment rate, etc. not gone up? The fact is we were close to a financial collapse. The economy was going to get worse not better whomever got elected in '08. It was going to bottom out during whomever got elected's first term. The only thing we can blame Obama for and its speculation is did he stop the bleeding soon enough and is the recovery too slow. My biggest blame for him is spending his political captial on health care. That should have been a second term issue or at least wait till the economy showed much stronger signs of recovery. It wasnt necessary, the primary goal he should have had was the economy. Pursuing health care as he had was careless. Maybe he thought he'd be a one term President and needed to get it done. Either way it was a huge mistake in my opinion. I have a few problems with Obama. My biggest one is that he became an establishment politician. He became no different than the rest. I am no leaving the Republicans blameless either. I truly believe that a some, not all, but some of the Republicans wanted Obama to fail (normal, both sides want the other to fail) to the point where even if it was good for America they would oppose it. I truly believe that some Republicans would and did do that and thought they'd right the wrong when they got in power. I think some are that insiduous. I think Obama to some extent is as conniving. He's very, very smart but I think he has a little bit of the Bill Clinton expediency about him even if its against his core beliefs. I think some of the Republicans are so far up their own asses that they believe their party IS America and that they confuse their party for America. The Dems, some of them, are weak willed. I am not as much of a Ron Paul fan as I used to be. I like hiim but not as much. I am hoping the future lies with someone like Christie or Newark mayor Cory Booker. Plain spoken, integrity and could give a f*ck if even their own party is wrong, they are going to do what they believe is right. I nickname it the 'Soprano' politician since they are from New Jersey.

Maybe this belongs in sports but I've always heard that elite athletes have a sort of fraternity. They are in a special club that only another elite, world class understand can understant the drive, ambition, pressure, etc. It cuts across cultural, ethnic and racial lines. I recall hearing that Mario Lemieux and Michael Jordan were friends and that what may seem like an odd couple was actually an easy friendship because they understood each other right away. Same with Beckham and others such as Jordan and even Tom Cruise to use an elite actor instead of athlete. Swimmer Michael Phelps and football player Ray Lewis have a friendship based on what I described above. http://sports.yahoo.com/video/phelps-came-back-because-ray-030000235.html

Good post 'drifter. Agree with the jist of it. I don't really think they think they can take back Europe. I still suggest that the G8 simply agree to ween themselves off oil. Not totally but make their economy not oil based. Cars and transportation run on hybrids, natural gas (even though some of that comes from the ME), use solar, wind and nuclear where ever possible. If we do not have a business interest in the region we will leave it politically and militarily. Europe has lost its fight since WW2 and can be bullied. Moslems know this. France is fighting back somewhat and England isn't nearly as soft as some of the Euro countries on the continent.

I think to a certain extent Flash is right. When left alone, Moslems have fought each other. The Ottoman Turks had a helluva time trying to keep their empire stable. Shi'a / Sunni rivalries are intense and brutal. They will fight each other and are doing it now. On a governmental scale Iran and the Saudis are headed toward conflict eventually over the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. I don't think the moslems are looking to conquer the non moslem world. The problem is only in certain areas. Such as Europe and to a lesser extent England. If you notice America does not have the same issues with extremists or dissatisfied moslems as the Brits do with Pakistanis and other moslems as well as Europe. The reason is that America 'cherry-picked' the type of moslems we allowed in. Generally, middle class, professionals often in stable families and they became Americanized easier because they found success easier. Britain brought in a lot of Paksitanis from their empire who were poor, under educated, etc. and found it much harder to integrate into British society. Many became 'British' but many have high unmemployment rates, etc. Europe imported lots of moslems for work. Also, many university students who for some reason became dissatisfied but their American counterparts were not. Anyway, many moslems outside of Europe and the UK regard the moslems there as their own and could not care less about local law, being moslem is above the local law. America doesn't have that problem in fact, American moslems actually do a lot of internal spying on their own and alerting authorities of fundmantal, anti western, aniti American behavior. They are very worried about how they are portrayed and viewed and take a dim view of those who would give credence to fears after 911. The arab spring is actually a plus for the west. The old guard were two faced. They would ofen receive monies from the west and pledge friendship and use anti west rhetoric internally to blame for their own corruption and incompetence and basically blame the west for their people being poor. Its harder to do now. Africa is becoming the next major problem. Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, etc. will need to be addressed. Hyprocritically, the arab/moslem world has nothing to say about Islamic oppression and aggression. They quietly approve it. It was how they spread Islam originally. Europe has a problem though, a big one. France, Germany, Holland, Spain, has sizable moslem peoples that see themselves above local law and are loyal only to their version of Islam.

Chuck Hagel seems like the kinda guy, I'd vote for. Republicans gotta stop this petty crap http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hagel-profile-20130114,0,3529852.story

Colin Powell on Hagel and the GOP http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/13/16491040-powell-champions-hagel-as-defense-secretary-and-rips-some-republicans?lite

Going back to the gun debate thingy and I see that Chicago is approaching 500 murders. Most of it minority killings. I also wondered where all these teens and 20 somethings in urban America are getting these guns? My guess, like most people, is that its stolen guns. I did a little research and found this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.... one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities. The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity." ...The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years. So I am wondering why doesn't the government do something about this? It should be fairly easy to infiltrate gun stores, etc. and a simply computer program and some police work can determine who is buying or has bought guns for criminals. I saw this on a forum about this and this is what the forumite said: Most illegal guns can be traced back to a small percentage of dealers. Who these dealers are is not information that the public can access due to NRA backed legislation. Lawsuits are not good for gun industry profits. Even law enforcement has very restricted access to the ATF's gun crime trace database. That means that if police in one state suspect someone of gun trafficking they can not access the ATF's database to see if guns in other states have been traced to this person. Arrests and convictions are not good for gun industry profits. The ATF itself has lacked adequate funds, manpower, and a permanent director for years because of the NRA and the politicians it controls. Robert Ricker, a former NRA insider, admits- “This is spin. This is what I used to do for the industry,†he says. “The National Rifle Association, every year, is before the appropriations committees on Capitol Hill advocating that ATF's budget be cut. They know that ATF does not have the manpower or the money to do an adequate job enforcing our gun laws.†http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-553147.html The scary prospect to me it seems like the government does NOT want to stop it for whatever reasons. Urban cities are awash with guns and it just seems like there is no concerted effort to rid the cities of it and we have thousands of young people with easy access to guns. Its insane.

I think Obama became an establishment poitician. I don't like a lot of what is going on. That said, what is the alternative? The Republicans are far worse. Which is scarier. Obama's administration is scary enough with the violation of civil liberties and constitutional rights. The right is even worse because it seems like the fringe wants it, along with social conservatism and legislating morality. At least with the Dems their fringe oppose what Obama is doing and will obviously oppose any Republican who gets in power and tries the same. We are in a sad state of affairs. Countless posts ago I said we are no longer living in a free Republic. That is gone. The government is not even hiding it any longer. You can be detained for anything, any time without a lawyer for certain things. American citizens outright killed overseas without due process and its accepted because of who they associate with (suspected and known militants). NYPD has a program of stop and search and they can and will arbitrarily stop anyone in order to get illegal guns. At one time it was okay to stop a cab with somone in it (usually minorities). They can go into apartment buildings (under the okay of the owner, which is often pressured) and stop and frisk anyone in the halls. College kids on their way to classes from home are often stopped and searched and there is no reasonable cause either. I know of one girl or rather a friend of a friend, who writes a blog and was critical of the government. Nothing more than your usual rant. No threats against the President or anyone like that. When she tried to get a visa to travel to Thailand and China she was denied a visa. Had she went to LOS directly and opted for a visa on demand she would have been denied as her passport was flagged. Good thing she didn't know that and tried to get one in the US ahead of time. Its that bad now. Maybe Obama really intended on transparency, maybe he didn't. What ever the case he realized he couldn't or rather wouldn't. My guess is he knew if we really saw how things worked we'd vote half the government out. That we'd rebel against the monied elite the special interests who have bought them off.

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/final_turning/video.cfm?s=al&promo_code=11493-1

There was another 'Stand your ground' incident in Florida several weeks ago. A guy was at a gas station in his car waiting for his wife to come back from the cashier. A car pulls up with 4 young people and they are playing music too loud for the guy in the car waiting for his wife. He tells them to turn it down and an argument happens. The young people come out of their car, the guy waiting for his wife has a gun and shoots them saying he felt his life was threatened. He fired off 8 shots I believe. People tried to draw similarities to the Martin-Zimmeman case because the shooter was White and the young folks were Black. People questioned why he 1) fired off 8 shots. The youngsters had no weapons and some reason that if he had a gun and brandished it, there is very little reason they would still advance on him. If that was what they were doing. one shot would make someone without a gun run even if they had numerical superiority. 2) he initiated the original contact. The problem I have with the Stand Your Ground law is that any heated argument can end in justifiable homocide if the shooter feels his life is threatened. We have different opinions on what constitutes life being theatened. Simple arguments after a car accident where you're in someone's face. I've seen that often, under this law there would have been more homocides over your typical argument.

Hey Flash (and Merry Christmas) I was unclear. If you are a U.S. citizen who has a DUI overseas and has been convicted you can get a gun in the states. I am saying if you have an overseas conviction, it negates you from having a gun in America. What about effed up things like if you owe taxes or something like that. Basically silly things to restrict the use. Basically pristine individuals.

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-didnt-want-president-son-claims-173907500--abc-news-politics.html Mitt Romney Didn't Want to Be President, Son Claims What amazes me were their pollsters and strategists convinced they were going to win. Shocking. I knew Obama was going to win but its just a matter of how much. I am obviously no insider genius. One poll got it consistently wrong and they were the sole one against every other poll. Anyway, some interesting things in the next run for President. Christie could do very well but is not liked by the fringe right. He could win I think. The working class Joe would like his style. Hillary, if she runs, would have a tough time beating him. My favorite elected official and hopefully future president, Cory Booker, will run for senate after his term as Newark's mayor is up. He's who Obama should have been. He's just as smart (Stanford Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School) but has the integrity of Mother Theresa. I encourage all of you to wiki him. Scandal free as well. A guy I know who is a big fan of his thinks he may be secretly gay. Just his mannerisms. I'm not so sure. It shouldn't matter but of course it will. Jeb Bush has it all except the albatross of his family name. Still history is on his side. No winning Republican ticket in the last 70 years as ever won without a Nixon or Bush on it.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/thousands-sign-us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-141037563.html Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported from the U.S. over his gun control views. Let me understand this right. We want to deny (and deport) someone their constitutional right (free speech) for being against another right (right to bear arms)? Okay, got it.

Home invaders don't want to or expect to meet ANY lethal force responce. They simply are not going to continue if the person has a weapon even if the person is outgunned. Time is of the essence. There are some cases where they break into a rich home on a few acres of land where they have the time to rummage the place but are not encountering armed resistence. If they do, they are gone. Its simply not worth it. Too much risk in the well planned out home invasion. They count on no armed resistence. The run of the mill punk in urban areas who breaks into a home is definitely not going to stay if there is a standoff and the person has a gun. He's leaving. Simply not worth it. Time is of the essense just as the above. in bank robberies the first rule of bank robbers is to neutralize the arned threat. The guards. Basicly, criminals almost always avoid situations with an armed response even if they will have overwhelming force, too many things can happen against them. Ten bullets is more than enough to deal with the run of the mill house robber and his partner, if there is one, who have a hand gun and just having it will deter 99% of well armed house invaders because they don't want any armed response. I would also start advocating dogs. I wanted a rott but was traveling on business fairly often and I worried about the care and feeding of the animal so I got a glock instead. I lived on a quiet street but within very close walking distance of an area that had drug dealers and where you have drug dealers you have addicts breaking into homes to rob for a fix. The gun was not the choice I wanted (a dog would have been great company). For a family a dog is a good alarm. Someone is always at home to take care of it. The NRA is advocating for us to be like Israel. Armed cops and military everywhere. Its like reconstruction south after the civil war. Surprisingly believe it or not, Israel has very strict gun laws. Out of a nation of 7 million I think less than 150,000 have a license to carry a gun.They have soldiers everywhere. Malls, stores, markets, schools, etc. Do we want America to look like that? In terms of urban crime, I've long said that improving urban life will do more than building jails or hiring more cops. Far more. Start wtih education. Real, quality k-6 education. That is the basis. HS is too late. You build the foundation from 6 to 12 and you will reduce a host of problems: teen pregnancy, gang membership, taking or selling drugs, etc. Children who believe they have a bright future simply don't have babies or join gangs or do hard drugs if at all. Do what Jack Kemp advocated years ago and have urban areas, especially high crime areas be 'enterprise zones'. Massive tax incentives for businesses to locate there and hire a certain amount of the local populatiion or have them be able to write off training programs if people have to be trained for certain types of employment.. Even extending it to the fast food areas. Employment wil stop crimes. Convert the urban housing projects to direct home ownership. The federal governmen is spending untold millions maintaining buildings that are unsafe. Allow long time residents grandfathered in before a certain date to own their apartments giving them instant home ownership and with home ownership comes, responsibility. They will learn the power of home value and work hard to maintain it. They have no incentive to maintain it now since its not theirs. The proposed infrastructure bill could help in a big way. Anyway, as I stated in my long post, make gun ownership difficult and cumbersome, reduce the NRA's power, make a concerted effort to change the public perception of guns and effect a cultural change to a non gun culture.

Gun ownership is deeply cultural and those outside the U.S. will find it nearly impossible to understand it. Those that have lived in the U.S. for some time, especially in certain areas will have a better understanding even if they do not agree with gun ownership. I've met more than a few expat Brits at the pub watching soccer in LA who were opposedd to gun ownership and became gun owners once they moved permanently to the U.S. Especially the married ones with a family. The possiblity of home invasion, car jacking, or what have you is a stark reality that seems more likely in your mind once you move to the U.S. than you did in England or Europe if you're European. The nightly news as well as local news is enough to scare you into it. Especially in LA where you have well armed criminals, gangs, and the like, which gives any pacifist pause. That said, there are incremental steps that can be done. I would like to see assault rifles go the way of the dinosaur. A buy back program by the government. Also a limit on bullets. if you buy a hand gun for home protection why do you need more than 10 bullets for example? Perhaps have gun ranges with well accounted for bullets for use there if you want target practice. The NRA spokesman said there were cases of home invaders showing up with many rounds of ammo and assault rifles. Its overkill, the invaders usually case out a place and know there isn't a gun or if they are not sure they try the method of fast overwhelming force. If you have a handgun, even with 10 bullets it will give them pause. Last thing a criminal wants is a shoot out even if they have the heavier fire power. They are counting on no fire power. If you're held up in a part of the house it gives you time to call 911. The most likely scenario is a home invader leaving. Gun shots alert neighbors, etc. Hunters can have temporary use of rented hunting rifles at an authorized and license gun store such as how you rent a car. It may help restrict the number of bought guns. You can simply rent one for hunting and it goes back to a central location and not in 'circulation'. Offer an alternative to ownership. Renting a weapon instead. of course the background check restrictions apply. The NRA dug its heels in and are now seen in a far less light. They didn't show enough sympathy. Removing their power is paramount. If one is going to get any kind of restrictions, at least meaningful ones, their power has to be ciipped. The stats show that the majority of gun owners are not members. There is a reason for that. The polls show that gun owners are open to and even favor restrictions that the NRA leadership opposes. Even a good number of their own membership are open to restrictions and controls the leadership isn't. The fact is that the NRA leadership does not reflect the views of gun owners. Also, they have used poltical intimidation and outright lies to control and punish politicians. They know their hard core members are of the para military, militia types who fear either the government or crime from certain elements. I have an uncle who was in the Korean war. He has a arsenal of weaponry. He could hold off a battalion with the weapons he has. Scary stuff. However, he does not like the NRA. He thinks they have used racial politics to scare their membership. They use the lie that Obama or other Dem candidates will take away their guns if elected which is one of the reasons gun sales shoot up after Democratic wins or after an incident of gun violence that makes national news. My uncle said when ever there is a fear of urban crime they always warn people to stock up on guns, fair enough, but when they are asked about what residents of urban areas should do their response is to support the local police and give them expansive powers (such as the NYC program that arbitrarily stops minorities now). Its never the same advice to their hardcore membership, buy more guns. They have not encouraged law abiding minorities in high crime areas to buy more guns as they do to the white membership in areas that aren't even subject to urban crime. There is a certain Aryan fringe within their membership that expects some sort of race war in America so the NRA appeals to them by not advocating the same advice to minorties. I was not aware of it till my uncle suggested it. Another way of restrictions is to remove the rights of gun ownership to those who have violated more mundane laws.or expand current ones. For example you can be convicted of a DUI and still get a gun if you're sentenced for no longer than a year or if its overseas. I'd change it to ANY DUI conviction anywhere. I would work on the gun manufacturers. Over legislate them. Also, just like we do with smoking in school, start the cultural change in grade school as we do with anti smoking and drinkiing. Impose some sort of yearly tax, surcharge or whatever to pay for extra police, etc.If you leave the country for a certain amount of time, maybe longer than one month, its surrendered to local authorities until your return. Any member of the family that its passed to must pass ownership requirements. Overall make it so that you have be a saint to get one, easy to lose the right, restrict the type and amount of weapons and ammo you can have and expensive and cumbersome to keep it. Make it tough till the cultural change happens.

I've always imagined what I would do if there was some cataclysmic event like the show The Walking Dead or any one of those movies where something happens to the earth like a meteor that darkens everwhere for a few years. I'd definitely stock up on guns. My plan would be to get to one of those tiny islands in the caribbean near the Bahamas. There are tons of them. Guns, canned goods, and I would invite an engineer, survivalist, doctor and at least 2 young hot girls for each guy. Really, that's my plan.

If its constitutionally acceptable, I'd limit gun owners to 10 bullets. Shooting ranges can have an audited amount that can be bought by shooters but any unused amounts must be returned. Also, tax the hell out of both the guns and the bullets. Do what ever we can to limit gun companies as well.