HeyYou

Wow? It went up? I think it was hovering around 5% last time I checked...... I think taxes are still going to go up a bit, just not as much if nothing had been passed. (according to what I read this morning....) I don't think I make enough money for it to be an issue though. :) Obama doesn't have to worry about keeping opinions up for the next presidential election, so, he is a lot 'freer' in what he can get away with in his second term. Expect to see him being more aggressive over the next four years. Not sure I see that as a 'good' thing.......

It does kinda/sorta tie in though. Walker is trying to reduce school expenses by curtailing union rights for teachers. Now, having to have armed guards in schools would seriously undermine his efforts at reducing costs. Arming the teachers is pretty much a "free" solution to the security problem....... and unfortunately, I think money is going to be a major factor in the decision making process on how to deal with this particular issue. Armed guards that are worth a hoot don't come cheap. Teachers are already there, and being paid in any event. Let them carry weapons, and you obviate the need for expensive armed guards. Would anyone think hiring minimum wage ARMED guards is a good idea? :)

I REALLY don't want the dems controlling all three houses..... that would rather suck. Sure, there are a bunch of things that I am on the same page with them, but, there are others..... that I most certainly am NOT. (oh, gee... really? Imagine that.... :D) I am not sure just what the republicans are thinking at this point, or even if they are thinking AT ALL. They HAVE to know that not passing something, and just letting us all go over the cliff is most certainly political suicide.... but then, they have been nothing but obstructionists since the 2010 elections. I think whatever plan they thought they had is going to turn around and bite them right in the keester. Hard. I don't want EITHER party to be able to just waltz whatever laws they want right on thru..... If the dems talk too loudly about gun control, I think they will find republicans coming out in force to support their candidates next election....

Yeah, it appears there weren't any spending cuts (or, not very much, if any) in the Senate passed bill, and the house republicans are unhappy with that.... At least until the markets open tomorrow, (wednesday) and start dropping like a stone thru vacuum...... At that point, they might actually call a vote on it. :)

@Korun: Banning guns simply isn't the answer. It won't work here. At all. Even suggesting that in congress would get you laughed out of the building. Even the democrats (anti-gun) are well aware of that. +@Colourwheel: No, it isn't really a "solution", I am not sure there IS a 100% sure cure. But, it would at least, reduce the potential damage done. The trouble with more police would still be response time. In these type of events, a LOT happens FAST. Even two or three minutes is enough time to wreak some pretty serious havok. Where children are concerned, SECONDS count. Armed guards on the scene would already be there, but then you run into the problem of cost..... Schools are already having financial troubles.... (and that could be it's own topic as well...) Trying to saddle them with yet another expense just wouldn't go over well. Some schools are friggin' HUGE, and would require a small army for 'adequate' coverage...... Simply letting the teachers carry doesn't cost anything. (aside from perhaps some more liability insurance coverage.....) And they are RIGHT there on the scene too..... Is it an ideal solution? Nope. I suspect though, that it is going to have to be at least a small part of any solution that we actually expect to work. As for the Governor in Wisconsin.... Yeah, he is a piece of work all right..... His major goal in curtailing collective bargaining is he thinks he can cut costs that way. Don't expect him to be real enthusiastic about transferring the money he thinks he is going to save into putting guards in schools.

I will grant there are some places where I would not want just any Tom, Dick, or Harry carrying a weapon. Aircraft being right up there on the list. Air Marshals carry weapons with specific ammo, designed NOT to punch holes in an airplane fuselage..... (that would just be bad at 35,000 feet.....) However, for the most part, on the ground.... as I see it, the more folks with guns, the LESS likely you are to have some whacko going berserk and seeing how many folks he can kill before he turns his weapon on himself. Requiring 4 years of study to own a firearm is, in my opinion, WAY over the top. In the military, I spent a couple days in classes, and on the range, and I was qualified to walk around with a fully automatic weapon, (to include light machine guns.....) and a host of other esoteric weaponry. (grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, etc.....) However, I was REQUIRED to spend at least 4 hours per month out on the range, (with each weapon I wanted to remain qualified with....) and expend a certain amount of ammo. (I didn't mind that at all. :) ) Current licensing here in michigan, to get a concealed carry permit, you attend an 8 hour class, to include some time on the range. You must have the weapon you propose to carry with you for the class. It IS possible to fail...... I would point out, that so far, NONE of the mass-shootings have involved someone that was LICENSED to carry a weapon. Most are folks that have some manner of mental issues..... or simply a grudge, and are not fully mature enough to quite understand just what it is they are doing. Holding gun owners/retailers responsible for what happens is also a non-starter so far as I am concerned. We don't sue car manufacturers when a drunk driver kills an entire family.... we go after the person that was operating the car. Same should go for guns. Any lawyer that attempted to sue the dealership where some guy bought his car, and then later (perhaps years....) kills someone with it, would be laughed out of court. Not to mention that a significant percentage of sales (cars) are between private individuals.... I don't see that as really workable. Now, in the case of sandy hook.... where mom KNEW her child had issues, SHE should have had her weapons secured, and, if she hadn't already paid the ultimate price, I could see holding her at least partially responsible. At this point though, we don't know if she did or not... I don't recall reading anything about that..... (when my teenager was being truly awful, I exported ALL of my guns to a friends house..... even though I could secure them in my home, I thought it better that they were simply not around......) If your weapon/car is stolen..... that is something that is generally beyond your control. Holding someone responsible for what someone else does with an object that they took from you illegally would probably fall under some flavor of unconstitutionality. I think you would have a hard time getting that thru congress. :) I am still in favor of giving teachers/admin staff (including janitors....) the CHOICE to carry a weapon at school, and let it be KNOWN that it is indeed permitted. Had this been the case at Sandy Hook, odds are good that this particular event either would not have happened at all, or, the death toll would have been significantly less.

Good luck trying to advocate to reform american Football. I have no opinion on sports where the players become brain dead by their mid 40's. Notice how enforcing Legal limits‎ of alcohol level and driving has reduced DUIs? Just imagine today If there was no law on drinking and driving. Why not all of the above plus more? I agree education and cooperation between various government agencies would be nice as well as gun reform. Gotta agree with ya on the sports thing.... :D I am still curious how one reforms a gun..... Most gun deaths are suicides..... (better than half) Banning any particular segment of them won't change that. (unless you ban them altogether.... and even then, they will still be out there.) I seriously doubt our governments ability to propose any kind of reasonable legislation that would have any significant effect on gun deaths... they can't even balance a budget.... I also am of the firm belief that NO flavor of legislation that restricts gun rights will have any significant effect either. Restricting who can purchase, or where, or where background checks must be done, doesn't seem to have deterred any of the various shooters. In almost every case, the weapons used were acquired legally by the owner, and then the shooter got ahold of them. (either from family members, or, having someone that CAN legally buy them, go and get them.) Exactly what kind of legislation did you have in mind? Perhaps that would be a better topic?

Like I said before to some people this would be the 1st step to serious and meaningful gun reform. History also shows that banning/restricting things does reduce things as well... Football and athletic programs related to deaths are not concidered violent crimes or murder. I put forth that GUNS don't need to be reformed. After all, a gun is an inanimate object, therefore, it is impossible to reform. (and, one could argue, reform it from what? Should it be a baseball bat instead?) I am talking about people dying. HOW they get that way isn't really relevant. The major complaint here is that folks get dead. Why should we permit something simply because it isn't classified as a violent crime, when it actually kills more people than assault rifles? Isn't the goal to reduce deaths?? Do you not care that little Johnny got thumped on the athletic field, and subsequently died? Is it only a tragedy if someone shoots him with an assault rifle?? Drunk drivers kill more people than assault weapons..... drunk driving IS banned.... Still happens more often than folks are shot with assault rifles though. Perhaps we should ban alcohol altogether? Oh, wait, we tried that once, and it failed miserably.... to the point that the ban was repealed.... Hhhhmmm... Could it be that legislation is NOT the answer? Perhaps EDUCATION, or even some cooperation between various government agencies would be more effective......

Look at background processes. Especially anti-virus programs.

I don't quite get it still. Banning a weapon simply because of what it is, and it's capability, NOT because it has been demonstrated to have been used in a significant number of crimes? really?? Why?? Handguns are used in a majority of crimes, yet, no one is talking about banning those? It's always all about assault weapons. (not to mention that several municipalities HAVE hand gun bans, which haven't made a bit of difference in shooting deaths.......) Why do GUN laws need to be reformed? Why not where weapons may be carried? I would point out, that in the example of the Israeli school shooting, the shooter was stopped by a STUDENT carrying a weapon. Now, I am NOT advocating letting elementary kids carry weapons.... but, teachers/administrative staff? That would work. Be cheaper than armed guards as well. (by a good stretch) Why not ban Gun-Free zones? Most mass shootings of this nature occur where folks KNOW there shouldn't be anyone else around that could stop them. History has already shown that banning something does NOT reduce crimes committed by/for said item. In all reality, crime related to said ban actually INCREASES. How is there any logic to banning it then? Especially as relates to guns in the US? Football has killed more people than assault weapons used in crimes..... why aren't we banning football? It has a higher death toll?????? I know, lets ban school athletics programs, and use all the money saved to pay for the armed guards, or better yet, training and licensing for school staff to be armed. :D

Ok, first and foremost, the 'assault rifle' was found in the trunk of the car. It was NOT used in the school shootings. Source. (there seems to be a lot of different stories about this though..... whom do you believe?) Second, yes, an AR-15 CAN be converted to fully auto operation, HOWEVER, you need the military style bolt carrier, and a handful of other parts, to include a machine shop.... to do so. The kits are illegal, and the bolt carrier is not available for sale to anyone that does not have a federal firearms permit. (dealers license.) Without a GREAT deal of effort, and the aid of a gunsmith, the conversion isn't going to happen. If the shooter HAD used a full-auto weapon, the death toll would have been MUCH higher. The shooter used two semi-auto pistols. In a target rich environment like a school, he wouldn't even had to AIM to hit/kill someone. (sorry to phrase it that way...... seems kinda cold, don't it?) Even with only seven round magazines (fairly standard....) he would only have to reload once to accomplish his kill count. Three minutes is plenty of time, I think he had all of ten though. (the glock holds 15 rounds in the mag. I can't find enough info on his other pistol to make the call on mag capacity.....) One of my main points here though is, ALL of the weapons he had with him were legal. For his mother...... being he was under 21? he could not legally possess a pistol, and certainly not carry one around with him. I used to routinely carry an M-16, and am intimately familiar with them..... I have owned/examined/disassembled numerous AR-15 style rifles as well. While externally similar, internally, they are rather different. (see above.) Banning assault weapons would have no effect on this type of crime. The shooter here ostensibly didn't use it. The columbine shooters had pistols, and shotguns..... no assault weapons there either.... Have a look here . A list of school shootings dating back to 1902...... Please note, that in most cases, (99%) NO assault weapons were used. And one (Dawson College shooting) it all depends on your definition of assault rifle, weapon used there used pistol ammo...... So, why all the debate about assault weapons?

The government passed an assault weapons ban back in the 90's. (Brady bill) Due to the way the legislation was written, (definition of an assault rifle) gun manufactures just altered how the weapons were produced slightly, and they were instantly legal. Again. The polls and such indicating folks would be open to banning high-power rifles, and such, are rather suspect. I see nothing about how the polls are conducted, who is asked, or anything else for that matter. Cherry picking your respondents makes poll results come out the way you want them to. Sure, there are online petitions and such, that a couple hundred thousand folks have signed, but, that is barely over 1% of the population here. There are always knee-jerk reactions after incidents of this nature. I would also point out, that the story seems to have changed..... The press is now whining about how dangerous assault rifles are, and they point at Sandy Hook, however, when this story originally broke, it was flatly stated in the article that the shooter used a pair of hand guns, and the assault rifle was left in the trunk of the car. They seem to be neglecting that inconvenient little tidbit now, to further their position that gun control, or assault weapon bans, will have any impact on these sorts of crimes, when in reality, they won't. And the politicians? Yeah, the dems at the top, whom have always been anti-gun, are now shouting about gun-control-is-the-answer. This isn't anything new either. This is just typical political grand standing. They need to give the appearance of "doing something", even though they are well aware that: 1. It won't make any difference. And 2. It will never pass the republican controlled house. So long as it LOOKS like they are doing something, effective or not, that's all they really care about. Helps them get re-elected....

Chicago had a record number of murders in 2012. They also have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. No, death by alcohol (either the victim drinking, or someone else) isn't considered a violent crime, but, the victims are still just as dead. In the last year, we have had a number of accidents resulting in fatalities that were alcohol related. Trouble is, the one drinking WASN'T the one killed...... four teenagers in one incident, when the drinker ran a red light. An entire family in another, when a drunk driver blew thru a stopsign, and t-boned their car. How is this not worse than shooting them? Want to get away with murder? Get drunk, and run your chosen victim over. If it's your first offense, you probably won't even get jail time...... it you do it a couple times, you might get a year or three. That's it. Shoot them with a gun though, and it's life...... Please explain to me how that makes any sense at all. I would also point out that most crimes committed with assault rifles, the weapon in question was acquired illegally anyway. Even if you ban them, those that want to acquire them will indeed find a way. A ban will have zero net affect on it. There are just way to many already in circulation, and it is far too easy to smuggle just about anything you want over our various borders. Even our GOVERNMENT is doing it...... (fast and furious anyone?) Gun laws aren't going to matter. They have made all of zero difference in the various locations thoughout the US. Please have a look at the most dangerous cities here, then compare that to the cities with the strictest gun regulations. Please note that the lists are quite similar....... All the politicians grandstanding, and banning this, that, and the other thing, have done NOTHING to change crime rates. It is simply the wrong approach to the problem.

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss overthrow of the government. It is NOT 'legal' to advocate VIOLENT overthrow of the government. (peaceful overthrow is ok though..... neat huh?) Cars/trucks kill more folks than guns. There is no "need" for anyone to own more than one car. Should we restrict car ownership? Alcohol kills more people than cars or guns...... yet look what happened when alcohol was banned.... a whole new criminal enterprise sprung up, and even MORE people died..... And once again..... Assault rifles are used in less than 1% of gun crimes. In those where they were used, most were acquired illegally to begin with. Not to mention, I have yet to see anyone set the record straight on whether or not mr. Lanza actually USED the assault rifle he had, or if he left it in the car, which was what was originally reported. The guy shooting firemen should not have been in possession of ANY firearms AT ALL. (in all reality, he shouldn't even have been out of prison so far as I am concerned.......) He was a convicted murderer, that convinced some gal to purchase weapons for him. She is now being charged with accessory to murder. No legislation is going to make the slightest difference in these types of incidents. Simply passing some law is NOT going to make people take notice, and not go off on a shooting spree if that is what they really wanna do.

wonder if SKSE could be set up to dynamically create recipes.......Probably not just yet.... but, maybe in the future?

Personally, I don't see our politics, or politicians... EVER being in order again. Things have swung too far, both sides are far to entrenched in their positions, and there is too much money to be made NOT changing anything... for anyone to really do anything different. Which is why I won't give up my guns.... American society is headed for a fall. We may still be able to avoid it, but, Washington DC would have to make drastic changes to do so, and that doesn't seem to be even a remote possibility.... So, my best guess is five to ten years, and something "bad" is going to happen. At that point, it will be the folks with the guns that can actually hang on to what they have.... hopefully. I would have absolutely zero hesitation about killing someone that was threatening me, or any of my family. (or even some of my friends....) I don't care to discuss if I have ever killed anyone.

don't use an activator for the door. I think there are static meshes available as well? Just have your activator 'move' the object to the open position.

Seconded. I think I paid about 150 for mine, but, that's been a little while ago. Runs skyrim just fine. :)

Whats your budget? What country are you in? Any parts you already have that you don't need to re-buy? (keyboard, monitor, mouse.... etc.) Comfortable building your own? (get a lot more bang for the buck that way.)

Hhhhmmm.... maybe a scripted crafting station WOULD be the solution here.....

I would point out that the Sandy Hook shooter was dead before the cops arrived..... Police response times are not the best. Given the financial state of our economy, police and firefighters are the first to get layoffs. Even so, the BEST response time I have seen would still be a minimum of three minutes.... (and that's only because the cop shop is four blocks from the school....) a lot can happen in three minutes. Much better to have armed folks already on the scene. No gun law is going to take guns out of the hands of folks that want to do this kind of thing. I don't quite get why folks think there is something magical about a law, that everyone automatically obeys it. I would point out that murder is illegal, yet it happens many times a day.... even in gun-free countries..... As for the robber taking my gun away from me, and shooting me with it..... That's actually kind of funny. I think you watch too many martial arts movies..... about the time said robber even twitched toward me, I would be pulling the trigger...... so would most anyone else....

oh! are you sure? the guy at Sandy bridge or every where else think " yeah that must be cool here, a school, they will be a lot of child and teachers with guns.... i'm not a Psychologist, but i'm pretty sure, the guy just want to die and take numerous people with him or he's target would have been a precinct no? and this is what NRA is saying :P, good people with a gun against bad one, so, ok may be 27 people will be alive or may be not, but there is and will be one thing still, 99.99% of 130 000.000 american will use there guns in self defense and 0.01% who can or will probably kill one of your kid/parent/friend cool way of life for sure btw you can't..try ..to Ban gun-free zone, if you give firearms to people who are leaving/working in^^ or did i've missed something :) @@ If all he was concerned about was getting himself dead, he would have either simply shot himself, or, went someplace where there were lots of folks with guns. The fact that he chose a school, you know, a gun-free zone..... tells me he wanted to kill a bunch of other folks before finally killing himself. Please note: Most mass shooters have themselves as the last victims. Very seldom is it the cops that take him down. Have a look at the Colorado shootings. Also a gun free zone.... A movie theater. Now, what if half a dozen folks there had ALSO been armed? Do you think the death toll would have been higher, or lower? I know if I had been there, armed, about the time I saw him whipping out a weapon, mine would have also been in hand, and the death toll would have been two. The shooters first victim, and the shooter. Bear in mind, I have military training with firearms.... So, I don't really qualify as the "average" american.....

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom. 2. No, I'm not a child; I'm a concerned American citizen who finds fault in the Constitution. And believe it or not, I'm actually a Nationalist, but that doesn't mean I can't have my own biases against this nation's gun policies. I have a right to execute my opinions and concerns over the flaws of our society. Trouble is, gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. Your average maniac that wants to go on a shooting spree isn't going to care that he isn't allowed by law to possess a gun, nor is he going to care that walking into a gun-free zone with one is against the law. Nor is he going to care that shooting people is patently illegal. Laws only work on those that actually obey them. Criminals, and the mass shooters, by definition, do not. So, please explain to me how any law at all, short of an absolute ban of ALL firearms, and forcibly collecting the 2 million (underestimate... plus guns privately owned in the US) is going to have any effect at all? Banning assault rifles did nothing, I was still able to go out and buy one. Legally no less, as it was already in private hands. I could still buy extended capacity magazines when they were banned as well..... manufactured before the ban came in to play. Not to mention that background checks, etc, seldom would have any effect either, as most of the shooters did not have criminal records. There is NO legislation that is going to stop these kinds of incidents. Taking firearms away from the law-abiding is the exact WRONG thing to do. All you are doing is giving those that would become mass-shooters an even larger target selection, as they can be sure that no one else is going to be armed. Why is it, do you think, that 99% of these incidents occur in gun-free zones? Do you think these are people with a lust for combat, and WANT people shooting back at them? If that were the case, we would see more of these incidents at police stations..... Funny how none have happened at one eh? Banning ALL firearms, and attempting to collect them, would pretty much assure a civil war here in the states. Not many gun owners would willingly give them up. Many will fight. When the government starts killing its own citizens, the whole house of cards will come crashing down. Anyone willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety, deserves neither. I never agreed with taking guns away from anyone. In fact, if you recall from the first post I made in this debate, that is exactly what I WASN'T going for. I agreed with restrictions and reforms, not with seizing individual liberties. I understand where you are coming from, and that your right (and it is a right) to own a gun is one that you staunchly defend, but not everyone in this world should be given a gun; the proof is in the very roots of this debate itself. Yes, of course there are going to be complications with restriction and with reforms, like where we draw the line between who is and isn't a responsible citizen, who does and does not abide by the law, and how we can discern said responsible citizens from those who are not. The answer to your question is simple: this isn't an issue that can easily be solved, and there is no clear-cut answer, but leaving the law as it currently is, I believe, is certainly not the answer. You have stated you think the laws need to change. I have put forth my position that changing the laws will have zero affect. Let me reiterate: Most of the shooters have been folks with no criminal history, or history of treatment for mental instability. A fair few of the shooters did not use their own weapons, but, weapons they STOLE from someone else, be it a parent, or sibling. Most of these shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. Places where the shooters KNOW no one else will be carrying. I will grant that the Arizona shooter (the Giffords incident) DID indeed have a history of mental illness, but, due to privacy concerns, none of that was shared with law enforcement of any variety, to prevent him from purchasing his own weapon. (which he then used to kill several people......) So far, from what I am seeing, changing ANY laws won't have any affect whatsoever on the availability of weapons to someone that wants to commit suicide by seeing how many folks he can take with him..... On the other hand, it appears that armed citizens, including teachers..... have, in fact, stopped the shooter, and significantly reduced the potential casualty count, on multiple occasions. Do you see my logic here? Alright, fine, I'll admit to a structured argument when I see one. Considering all of the facts that you have brought to this debate, tell me this: what do you believe we should do? Leave the law as it is, do absolutely nothing, and ignore incidents like the Sandy Hook shooting? I see your logic, and I agree to most of it (said parents should have been more responsible), but someone has to take some kind of action here. And no, I don't mean with a gun. All I want to see is a safer nation; that's it, that's all I'm asking for. I'm not asking to take anyone's gun away. I'm not asking to sacrifice anything that would mean losing any freedoms we have today. All I'm saying is address these problems and solve this damn war between gun-lovers and those who'd rather see them put away. I admit, I don't have the answers, and I won't pretend that I do, but the law cannot stay the way it is today. It just can't; I don't see how it could. I am not entirely sure there is a "fix" for this particular problem..... aside from a complete ban of all guns, and using the military to collect them, forcibly if necessary...... guns are going to continue to be part of the american landscape. That said, there are few things I would like to see happen..... Biggest among them is cooperation among various departments..... folks being treated for specific mental illnesses should be prevented from purchasing weapons. (this would make only a very minor difference.) Ban Gun-Free zones. 90% of the mass shootings have taken place in gun-free zones. If you can be pretty much assured that your targets won't have the capability to shoot back, there is a lot less motivation to NOT do something like that. Police response times are measured in minutes...... which is all the time it took for 27 people to die in Sandy Hook..... They are the mass shooters major concern.... (as no one else is going to have a gun...) Letting the teachers/administrative staff carry would have put folks capable of stopping the shooter right on the scene, before the first shot was fired. Not 10 minutes after the last shot was fired.... (they would need to have proper training/licensing....) Change the 'good samaritan" law to include those that use deadly force is such situations.... There WILL be a time when an innocent gets shot by someone trying to take the potential mass-shooter..... On that note, whatever happened to the cops that shot 9 people in New York trying to get one guy with a gun? Is it a perfect solution? Nope. It would certainly give folks thinking about doing this kind of thing pause though.......

Lets dispel some rumors here.... First, the average american citizen may NOT own military grade weapons. This includes fully-automatic anything, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and cannons. (like you would find mounted on a tank, or artillery piece.) At least, not in FUNCTIONAL form. You can buy tanks on EBay, but, they have been de-militarized. The main gun is incapable of being fired, and the machine guns are generally non-firing replicas. I did see a 20mm anti-tank gun for sale at a gun shop once.... MANY years ago. The price tag was well in to 5 digits though, and the process for purchasing it was difficult, at best. Finding ammo for it would be darn near impossible. (on the legal market.) Sure, if you have a Federal Firearms License, you can actually own these legally. (for the most part) But, that particular piece of paper is EXTREMELY difficult to come by. Getting a Top Secret security clearance is easier...... If the cops saw you walkin' around with ANY of the aforementioned weapons, they would most certainly want to have words with you..... (and it would probably start with "DROP IT!") America IS an interesting place when it comes to firearm ownership. With the proper licensing, you can buy a friggin' minigun... (chain driven, multi-barrel weapon with a rate of fire north of a 100 rounds per SECOND...) Please don't mount it on your car/truck though.... the cops would be more likely just to shoot you on site, than utter a word of warning..... And of course, they also have a TRULY hefty price tag..... not something your average american will ever be able to afford. (think, more expensive than a fair few family cars.....) Any attempt at a constitutional amendment to change our gun rights would pretty much assure that said politician would NEVER get elected to another public office. I.E. Political suicide. Extremely unlikely to ever happen. And not just because of the gun lobby. Any attempt to disarm the public would result in utter failure, and MANY, MANY dead. Dissolution of the US would be a minor consequence in comparison.

Are you just trying to intercept the Level Up option on the menu? (when it would normally list "skills")