I've seen this before. No, the idea behind his comments are not wrong.
99.9% guns are never used in the commission of a crime.

To Beto and other socialist/communist scum, I simple say; come and get it.

"However, he hit the nail of truth smack dab on its head, when he said I will give you my guys, because I am a law abiding person, but now tell me how you are going to get them away from the criminals....????"

 I agree.

 I've seen a lot of exercises around this and none of them are something any city council would spring for, or be able to afford.

 Yes.

"Now I believe it was you who said laws were not meant to be a deterrent...
Am I right about that?"

 I said laws aren't meant to be exclusively a deterrent.  The logic presented was gun laws aren't followed by criminals so we shouldn't have them.

 So by that logic pedophiles won't stop raping children so we shouldn't have child protection laws.

 We need a way to prosecute crime consistently and fairly.  That's why we have laws.  For many it is a deterrent, for others it is no deterrent at all.  But to say we should only enact law that will be followed makes zero sense and is a poor argument for stopping legislation.



"Do we allow everybody with a differing set of culturally beliefs, influence the current expectations and unity of that entity (sovereignty) ?"
 

 Yes, as long as that influence is not criminal.  For instance if it's legal to marry at 14 in their country, they can not do that here.  But they can attempt to create a law here legalizing marriage at 14 and see how that goes.  Also if they are Hindu they do not have to convert to Catholicism if they get a job in a Catholic school in a Catholic neighborhood.

"Or do we expect those wishing to immigrate to these existing expectations, adopt them, as part of the cost of coming into our homes?"

 Why do you choose the phrase "coming into our homes"?  That is different if we are talking about accepting immigrants directly into our homes.

 What "expectations" are you talking about, and are why are they in our homes?
 

 As a note I am referring to immigrants as legally in the US and gun laws applicable as they are written and not complete confiscation of every gun from every person in the US.

"Ok, then we should allow openly, and freely, the dialogue that promotes expectations based on a Judeo-Christian belief(s), in striving for a better moralistic society that allows everyone a opportunity to achieve the things in life that are not against our laws?"


 We should allow each citizen to openly and freely dialogue in general.

 I think its completely acceptable for each human, that works in government to apply their religion.  I do not think their religion should apply to someone else.

 Government should not say "Look how good this religion is, and since its a good social tool, you should use this literature to apply your vote and develop policy."  

 So yeah each person can choose to use any religion they desire to create a better government.  If the principles of Hinduism are within the "Expectations" then great.

"Ok....then it's WE the people..... who gets to set expectations, NOT politicians who cave to politico pressure, or sell their souls to the highest bidder then, yes?"

 In theory yes, but in practice no.  The complexity of our political system and economy far outweigh the few people who vote and also do something about that vote.  



"Now I also do not want any goverment to restrict my practicing, expressing, or displaying, my faith either, ANYWHERE, public, or private, where others are extended the opportunity to believe, and express, their beliefs, views, feelings, in their lives....."

 Yeah.  Where was this even suggested that this wasn't allowed to begin with?  I've not seen anyone argue that any one religion should take precedence, or that people should not be allowed to practice their faith, within reason, and within the law.  

 The exception here being the Supreme Court case JoG claims exists that nobody else can find.

political system and economy far outweigh the few people who vote

Then using your observation, the economy, Trump is sure to win if it continues unabated.....yes?

BTW, of the folks I talk to, this is their #1 concern and reason to vote the way they do....

Me, I'm a oddball, I still like character, and personality, because I really feel the president is mostly a figure head, and not much more......
With that, its why I am not smitten with Trump, but the hate and anger directed toward him makes me even more sick.....

Edit: You want to define your within reason?  I get the law part, which, I think lots of people think the separation clause prohibits its expression.