Australian comedian perfectly sums up why other countries think US gun laws are crazy

I agree, and am glad it requires so many permissions and background checks. At the risk of sounding like the gun grabber mentioned by crazy dude, I'm fully in favor of background checks, and registration. Own a gun? Sure, own as many as you want, but if it gets out of your hands and into the hands of a criminal, I believe you're the one responsible for that.

Oh I know - I was in military aviation/air traffic control most of my working life. But the military can't kill everyone or who would they
take over? So eventually the military has to go house-to-house with boots on the ground against well armed people defending their homes
and way of life. So how is that working out in the sandbox for our military still left over there? Here's how well:

Paladin prefers his freedom.

So powerful that they accomplished exactly NOTHING following the most abominable gun massacre possible.

If you won't concede that I have a right to my gun, what do I have to gain by talking?

You want me to come to the table prepared to sacrifice something extremely important.

He believes you have a right to own a gun. He's never said you couldn't, and he's in favor of the 2nd amendment, so short of him sucking your dick while sporting a Heckler & Koch tattoo on his back, what more convincing do you need?

Then why denounce my position as "polarizing?"

If he agrees with me, why should my position be IN ANY WAY controversial?

Except, I don't. I want you to acknowledge that with freedom comes responsibility. You sacrifice nothing by doing so.

I agree that you should have a gun if you want one. I don't agree that there is no requirement for demonstrating responsibility. It is polarizing because your position demands that society accept ownership under the most dangerous of terms. It is further polarizing because you refuse to even discuss anything that varies, no matter how slightly, from your own position.

You are absolutely wrong about sane gun control laws losing every fight. Other wise where is your machine gun?

Already acknowledged.

But "responsibility" can't be code for "infringing my rights."

What demonstration do you require?

Uh, you are aware that machine gun ownership is legal except in a few states?

Spending an hour or two once a year or so on a test of safe handling practices, and a signed commitment to adhere to those practices. That's pretty much it.

Define "machine gun." A big scary military looking gun that sprays a lot of bullets in full auto?
Guess what - nobody wants a "machine gun." The fucking US Army doesn't want use them anymore for the average soldier.
They have a three round burst which is rarely used. Anybody can shoot semi-auto (that's as fast as you can pull the trigger for each round)
just as effectively without wasting ammo. Matter-of-fact the AR platform (scary military rifles)
is one of the most popular styles and gaining popularity every year here in Georgia! Hogs, deer, coyotes, thay are accurate and lethal with the right ammo.
So not as many people are toting grandpa's old fashioned deer rifle anymore. They are steering toward military style rifles as the go-to weapon.

Well we need to increase the supply to bring the price down then! I can't believe other countries haven't tried to do this yet.
Why not? Other criminals can't shoot them if they try it. The police sure won't or can't. It's virgin territory!

Not at all. We can and should be allowed to own guns for many reasons. That unlikely scenario is just one of them. We do have some experience in stopping oppressive
governments. We even fought a war over it! And there are how many civilian owned weapons in the US now? It's well into the millions.
But if your country wants to come and take ours you are more than welcome, and that invitation extends to any and all participants.

Right back at you mate! You are pure high octane comedy gold!

I might concede to a brief safety quiz on purchase, but renewing every year? No. Not only is that far more burdensome than is practically necessary (did you forget how to handle a gun since last year?) it requires some state apparatus to track and police such testing. Such a test amounts to the right becoming subject to state license.

Look at it from the point of view of a gun owner: every year the state gets a chance to deprive you of your right. And, if you think you've been treated unfairly, then you have to go through the administrative and bureaucratic jungle to restore your rights.

And don't say that won't/can't happen. I've seen the bullshit states pull under the guise of "safety;" the California Safe Gun Law is currently in the midst of keeping all new handguns of the California market in the name of some arbitrary safety standard (all new pistols require James Bond's "smart gun" ID system, which no gun on the market actually has) and very rapidly taking existing guns off the market. Oh, and the guns deemed "unsafe?" The police can still buy and use them, of course. They seem to be safe enough for public duties.

So, no, we're not going to do any "renewals." You get one bite at the apple.

I like guns. I like shooting guns. I like having a gun in my winery tasting room. However the gun isn't really accessible in my home. So home defense isnt a good argument.

Inferior civilizations have throughout history hated and feared and complained about the superior states whose culture invades their sad places. This is sort of like that. Poor guy in OP, so fixated on America and so envious of our clearly superior penises.

No registration, either. History amply demonstrates that registration leads to confiscation.

But if you decided that you wanted your gun in your home should you not have to right to do that?

I'm all about registering the owner. In other words once you are vetted as a sane non-criminal , you have the right to buy carry or use any weapon you choose.
My logic? Guns are inanimate objects! It takes a human to make them deadly. Thus the human is the key to gun violence or gun abuse.
You know, guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's kind of the way they do it on the military base where I work and hunt.
Once the base runs a background check and determines I'm responsible to bring weapons onto the post (for target practice and hunting only) I can bring as many
weapons as I want at any time. The weapons don't have to registered unless I resided on the post, which I can't because I am retired and
now a civilian.

I was just saying if you have children home defense isn't the biggest reason for gun ownership

See, this is why talking is better than refusing to talk. You make some good points about practical difficulties with my suggestion. How about a test on purchase, and a signed statement at specified intervals?

Unless you have the gun readily accessible to you only and can access the gun fast enough under pressure.
But I'm talking arms distance at all times.
Anytime you are not able to do this, securely lock it up - because very young children can't be depended upon
for home defense. Now if you have a mature, smart, responsible kid that's a different story.

Yes I know some people freak out at the thought of kids handling weapons, but a lot of us on WF
owned and shot weapons well before we were old enough to drive. And we are still alive! Imagine that.

I can, sure, but I have the backing of Federal Law as a qualified law enforcement officer and that was only since 2003. Can people everywhere in the United States? No. Not by a long shot. Stop pretending otherwise.

Reading comprehension is fundamental, friend. Read it again, slowly.