[TheRealThing]

Basically, I have said that I do not believe, historically or within the history of the SCOTUS itself, that the 2nd Amendment is an "any gun, any person, any time" interpretation. I do not believe that banning military style, mass kill weapons is a panacea in stopping terrorist attacks. The two don't have to belong together. Again, my relatives have all kinds of guns...none of which I believe "the Dems" want to confiscate, except perhaps a great uncle who could bust a spring at any minute, if it isn't already sprung. (That's a joke).

As far as Chicago, if I were Donald Trump, I would attempt to tax credit deal make a plan for bringing some major industry back to Chicago. 1,000 jobs in Chicago's toughest neighborhoods, Jack Kemp style, decent wage jobs, would be a good start. I believe reducing poverty is the single biggest key to reducing crime...and that requires good jobs with good wages.

Did you play for the Dodgers? LOL. The mass kill stuff is a red herring. Every idiot knows the only time a gun becomes to mass kill weapon, is when it's in the hands of a murderer. Mass kill also applies to buses, trucks, vans, jets, and volks wagons for that matter. And please tell us how tighter gun ownership regs will get the illegal guns off the streets? You can't. The illegal guns will stay in the shadows with the criminals who have them. Now, the guy who works and pays his bills and raises his family, he's the one whose home the gun confiscators are going to come to seize guns. The idea of the 2nd Amendment is such that law abiding citizens do not become victimized by criminals with guns.

Did you know one of the first questions an injured person is asked at the ER is if he is a gun owner, or if anybody in their household is a gun owner? What would that have to do with medical records? The information framework is in place, all that is lacking is the legislation.