Define "export" in this sense. Meaning we sell legally to people from other states? Or that people ship them to others, transferring ownership under the table? Needs some clarification, for me at least.

Robbie, we checked into your question and discovered that R.L.'s lede isn't exactly accurate. Mississippi exports more guns used in crimes than other state: http://blog.al.com/live/2010/09/alabama_mississippi_crime_guns.html And here's the report itself: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20100927-27guns-report.pdf Those sources explain well what is meant by "export guns."

Please explain how any of the 3 bills "relax" guns laws, not see anything that in any of them.

Donna, I remember a few years ago I was chastised by you for citing a NYT report as a secondary source, despite it being reputable, and that I needed to "dig deeper" despite me not being a journalist, and simply a commentator on this site. Shout out to Mark Geoffrau for backing me that day. Just an interesting turn of events. Regardless, criminal will conduct illegal activity regardless of what the gun laws are; they're criminals. Law abiding citizens should and do enjoy the freedoms of firearms on a day to day basis.

RobbieR: Hmm... I think that criticism of Donna is a bit of a "mis-fire" (get it?) Actually, two. 1.) Here's the story you're talking about where you were "chastised by [Donna] for citing a NYT report..." Tea Party Says AG Soft on 'Illegals'. You weren't "chastised" for linking to the New York Times or for quoting the report that was being discussed; you were challenged because what you linked to didn't support your argument that 12 million undocumented workers "don't pay taxes." It was fully explored in that post; I think you're misremembering the circumstances. 2.) Donna didn't only link to the Alabama Live story above, she also linked to the original report, which happens to be hosted on a New York Times server. That's kinda the definition of a primary source.

Robbie, no "interesting turn of events." You're not looking closely. The New York Times story is linking to the actual report. It's just on their site. You can also find it not on the NYT site. Just try. Actually, your statement about criminals and guns isn't accurate. There is much good research out there that shows the effect of the availability of guns has both on crime rates and the severity of the crimes committed. You know, if you care enough to look for information and consider the issue from various angles. Lives are at stake. And you can ask the family of the Chicago police officer killed by a Mississippi gun what they think of your thesis. Or the Chicago Police Department itself, which will yell and groan and warn about the problem they face on their streets due to lax gun laws in Mississippi. You know, when people bother to ask them. So at least be honest with us and just say you don't care about the facts here and how many lives (here and in other places) are placed at risk due to gun saturation and easy access -- and that easy access to guns is more important to you. I get so sick of listening to y'all squirm around the facts. Just be honest, for God's sake, and say what really matters to you the most.

Ah, and I see I cross-posted with Todd. Great minds ... well, you know. ;-)

BTW, this comment beautifully summarizes my question about the consistency of conservative positions on constitutional issues: Regardless, criminal will conduct illegal activity regardless of what the gun laws are; they're criminals. Law abiding citizens should and do enjoy the freedoms of firearms on a day to day basis. More back over on that thread: Wedge Issues Bring Heated Debates

So agree. Where is the logic between supporting voter ID and being against regulation/registration of guns? It sounds like it's simply a selfishness gap, and that ain't no way to enforce a Constitution.

Who said I was against the regulation of guns? Don't make assumptions, Donna. Poor inference on your part.

The logic is we alrealy have to SHOW AN ID to buy a gun and go through a background check EVERY time you buy a gun from a dealer. Have not seen very many gunowners complain about those regulations, only takes a couple of minutes and keeps felons from getting guns, so it works. I don't have a problem with either. I'm I to assume that since you think having to show an id and go through a background check to buy a gun should be done away with? Using ya'lls logic we shouldn't have voter id based on Constitutional grounds then shouldn't we alos not have to show one to buy guns based on the same grounds?

RobbieR, RobbieR. C'mon. Regardless, criminal will conduct illegal activity regardless of what the gun laws are; they're criminals. Law abiding citizens should and do enjoy the freedoms of firearms on a day to day basis. It seems fairly safe to infer that you are against further regulation when you offer up categorical statements such as this. If you're not, an your belief is more nuanced, then please offer it up.

Bubba: (a.) The ID that you do show to licensed dealers is done at the time that you attempt to make the purchase; it is not offered up every time you elect to make use of the gun. (b.) You have to prove residency in order to register to vote. Once that's done -- if the logic is consistent -- then you shouldn't have to prove it over and over again. I'm not saying that someone can't be inconsistent in their thinking -- clearly, people are. I'm just surprised that people who would attempt to make a "less government is better" argument would find solace in this particular stance on voter ID. Frankly, I (I'm a "you" not at "y'all") think there's a constitutional argument against the registration of guns, although I think it's weaker (See the comma/clause problem) than the constitutional argument against voter ID.

Todd, being opposed to further regulation != to agreeing with the current regulations that are already on the books.

Todd, Aren't you from Texas? You're a ya'll even if you don't want to admit it...LOL

Todd, Aren't you from Texas? You're a ya'll even if you don't want to admit it...LOL Oh, I fully subscribe to the usefulness of "y'all" (one of my favorite classes in college was a Linguistics course at Texas A&M that more than fully explained the appropriateness of the form) but I'll forever and ever only allow it in the plural, not the singular! Anyway, if you were all in, you would have said 'Todd... Y'all're a y'all even if you don't want to admit it." :P

"Where is the logic between supporting voter ID and being against regulation/registration of guns?" That is one hell of oxymoron!!!!! But its one of the realist statements I ever heard and it points out the hypocritical state of mind so many people have in the state of Mississippi right now!

Todd, You went to A&M? It's a fine school, know lots of people in the cotton industry that graduated from A&M,they all seem to know their fields of study better than grads of "The Ag School in Miss. who's name shall not be mentioned". LOL Always been a fan of A&M, they are now my new 2nd favorite school in the SEC.

Yes, I'm a Texas Aggie. I don't know much about cotton... I was one of the relatively few and proud to graduate A&M with a degree in English Literature. :) And Texas A&M will now, officially, be my second favorite school in the SEC as well... so as not to cause any undo consternation in my household. After all, State was there first.

Damn right it was.

Come on, we have to see the irony of "undo consternation" stated by the English major? *undue Donna, put another one on the scoreboard for our alma mater. #HailState

Concealed carry "reciprocity" laws are popping up all over the country now. The country, as a whole, is now arming itself as never before. Just research the figures of fire arm purchases by women in the last few years. The stats speak volumes.

So what, Bill? These people are abiding by the law and exercising their right. Replace "arming" with any other Constitutional right, such as "voting" or "voicing their opinion" and you can see how ridiculous your statement is.

Robbie- I wasn't saying that as if it were a bad thing, merely a statement of fact. I am quite a firearms enthusiast myself.

Ah, my bad then.

@BubbaT "Using Ya'lls logic we should have voter ID based on Constitutional grounds then shouldn't we also not have to show one based on the same grounds?" ButtbT, A VOTE ain't never killed anybody; however, bad people used guns to killed women and blacks who tried to VOTE. Think about it!

Come on, we have to see the irony of "undo consternation" stated by the English major? Apparently I was a literature major, not a spelling major.

I also wonder if the young kid in Flordia would still be alive if Mr. Zimmerman was not armed with his AK 47?

Jess- From all reports I have read Zimmerman was armed with a pistol,not a AK47, it's a rifle. And a vote has killed a lot of people, voting for certain candidates and their election has caused a many young American soldier to die. Think about it!

"Alright, there, pal, put your hands where I can see 'em," said BubbaT, stepping out of the shadows, widening his stance, and tipping back the brim of his hat with his left index finger. "I've got a vote here... and I know how to use it."

ROTFLOL. That was funnier than the Leverage dance. (Sorry: private joke) DRAW!

Todd- I do got a vote and know how to use it...LOL

Jess- The women suffrage movement was non violet from all accounts. One of the reason not much is taught about it in history classes other than just a mention that it happened. Oh and guns have been used by good people to keep bad people from stealing elections too, like in Athens Tenn in 1946.

Todd- looks like neither of us majored in spelling, I really meant non-violent not non-purple-ish...lol