2nd amendment sanity

[21stcenturyrights]

motor vehicle safety regulations. Clearly given the title of this post you know thats off point and should be ignored (trying hard not to ignore you for making it)

You don't remember saying it, or you are accusing me of lying? If I show you where you said it, what do I get?

And what are you saying we already have?

 

[RF667799]

What are you talking about? I am talking to another poster about guns, not about someone's sexual preferences!

So? If someone can ask why I need to have a gun in the context of a discussion about limiting me from having a gun, then you can be asked about your need for whatever sexual preference trips your trigger. That's what she is saying to you.

 

[Lursa]

What are you talking about? I am talking to another poster about guns, not about someone's sexual preferences!

You are talking to him about justifying the exercising of a right...and you said those that wouldnt articulate their needs to do so were cowards. I provided 2 other rights that we dont expect people to justify and we dont consider 'cowards' for not doing so.

You are smarter than this, a respectable poster...what part of this dont you understand? The comparison of rights?

 

[RF667799]

No, because I understand why someone needs different fishing rods

My wife will tell you that some of them are redundant. And if @noonereal was questioning, he would tell tell you that you only need what HE thinks is appropriate.

 

[21stcenturyrights]

I don't want them around my children even if they don't have firearms. What is your plan?

I've repeatedly put my plan out there. and you keep trying to tear it apart

through law or membership i believe the gun owners and their groups (NRA would be nice, because of its size, but clearly it and its members are too committed to mass murder to be useful here)

gun owners should lead the charge in making sure 2 types of people DONT get firearms

1. someone who is not qualifed on a firearm should not get to buy it, its ammunition, or rent or use other than in training

2. someone with history of violent instability or dangerous manifestos should not get firearms.

the rest of the details can be worked out. I'm shocked how hard it is to get people to agree to those two TINY standards.

 

[RF667799]

motor vehicle safety regulations. Clearly given the title of this post you know thats off point and should be ignored (trying hard not to ignore you for making it)

So are you advocating passing a test to buy a motor vehicle? That was the context of your "motor vehicle check" comment it seems you suddenly remember.

And are we discussing accident prevention, or mass murders? You're all over the map.

 

[RF667799]

when did i say guns were?

part of the problem is gun owners won't take the lead on any reasonable solutions to prevent bad people from getting legal guns.

I ask again. WHY DO YOU WANT PEOPLE WHO ARENT QUALIFED AND OR HAVE SHOWN THEY ARE LIKELY DANGEROUS TO OWN FIREARMS

if gun ownership is a "club" or a "group" (Just go with the example) why dow you want those two types of people to carry the weapons?

If they want a gun, let them learn how to use it THEN get one.
I know, as a business owner, i don't want unqualified people in my industry causing havoc

If they are dangerous,...why would you want them to have any firearm?

It's really strange that you claim to be a gun owner, but so often refer to gun owners as if "they" are a category separate from you. Force of habit?

 

[donhughesmusic]

So? If someone can ask why I need to have a gun in the context of a discussion about limiting me from having a gun, then you can be asked about your need for whatever sexual preference trips your trigger. That's what she is saying to you.

I'm not asking why in the context of a discussion about limiting you. I'm asking you in the context that I haven't fired a firearm since I was a child, and therefore am not educated in what calibers are bigger, smaller, etc...

 

[21stcenturyrights]

Again, is there some flood of people who don't know how to use their guns driving this nonsense? There are about 500 accidental deaths per year involving guns. Out of over 400 million firearms and 80 or 100 million owners. That doesn't seem like something to upend the apple cart about.

You want pro-gun people to accept your anti-gun agenda along with all the usual weasel shit it includes. You want them to just do willingly what the anti-gun zealots desire. Got it.

The quick shuffle from "dangerous item needing safety regs" to "mass murder machines" is typical. "Oh we can't make that comparison because here is a narrowly qualified scenario that is the only relevance" is another weasel move.

I'll ask again... who is administering this test to be allowed to buy ammunition or guns? What if I sell a gun to someone? I have to give them a test? That's easy. Which end the bullet come out? Okay, good to go.

Why would you want someone with an unsafe background, or a manifesto planning violence to own a Ninja sword? Your special pleading is becoming obvious.

And so far as your "motor vehicles check" comment, Are you saying that you want people to pass some sort of test to buy motor vehicles or to fill the tank on a motor vehicle? I advocate for criminal background checks for the possession of guns or motor vehicles, but your suggestion seems impractical to an extreme.

I never said anything in this post motor vehicles need regulation. I don't see them in the 2nd amendment

all i said. REPEATEDLY and I'd like you to tell me what's wrong in this:

people who are NOT qualified to use a firearm should not be allowed to purchase it or its ammunition. I don't want people unsafe with a firearm to be near my kids with one.
people who are clearly unsafe /violent/have manifestos of violence should not get firearms.

really. why should we want either of these people to be able to harm your kids?

that's all i need to know. why do you want to endanger your children?


and, if you read what i wrote. I am begging my friends who own guns to get involved in creating these guidelines, or this group, or these laws.

before the anti gun nuts take away my arsenal because ...at a certain point being the ONLY country with all these mass casualty events by legal firearms will have to be brought to an end


Sweden has almost 100% gun ownership by household. and almost NO such crime.

because they have similar standards to what i suggest.

i know. it's complicated to realize maybe unsafe or untrained people shouldnt' shoot guns (or certain types, depending on training). but is it really>

 

[RF667799]

I've repeatedly put my plan out there. and you keep trying to tear it apart

through law or membership i believe the gun owners and their groups (NRA would be nice, because of its size, but clearly it and its members are too committed to mass murder to be useful here)

gun owners should lead the charge in making sure 2 types of people DONT get firearms

1. someone who is not qualifed on a firearm should not get to buy it, its ammunition, or rent or use other than in training

2. someone with history of violent instability or dangerous manifestos should not get firearms.

the rest of the details can be worked out. I'm shocked how hard it is to get people to agree to those two TINY standards.

Oh yeah....all real gun owners make the pants on head hyperbolic claim that the NRA and it's members are "committed to mass murder"

 

[donhughesmusic]

You are talking to him about justifying the exercising of a right...and you said those that wouldnt articulate their needs to do so were cowards. I provided 2 other rights that we dont expect people to justify and we dont consider 'cowards' for not doing so.

You are smarter than this, a respectable poster...what part of this dont you understand? The comparison of rights?

Again, I am not asking him to justify. I am asking him because I have not fired a gun since I was a child, and am legitimately curious. I am not asking him in the context of justifying a right.

 

[donhughesmusic]

My wife will tell you that some of them are redundant. And if @noonereal was questioning, he would tell tell you that you only need what HE thinks is appropriate.

I'm not noonereal or your wife. You're assuming what I am going to say based on what those two say, two people who I have never met.

 

[21stcenturyrights]

Oh yeah....all real gun owners make the pants on head hyperbolic claim that the NRA and it's members are "committed to mass murder"

I own about 40 firearms. Just so we are clear.

and yes. figting basic solutions while the problem gets worse, and offering NO solutions of their own. makes them complcit.

now will you answer why people who can't handle the weapon, or are unsafe and dangerous people should have firearms.

it's not a hard question.

 

[RF667799]

I never said anything in this post motor vehicles need regulation. I don't see them in the 2nd amendment

all i said. REPEATEDLY and I'd like you to tell me what's wrong in this:

people who are NOT qualified to use a firearm should not be allowed to purchase it or its ammunition. I don't want people unsafe with a firearm to be near my kids with one.
people who are clearly unsafe /violent/have manifestos of violence should not get firearms.

really. why should we want either of these people to be able to harm your kids?

that's all i need to know. why do you want to endanger your children?


and, if you read what i wrote. I am begging my friends who own guns to get involved in creating these guidelines, or this group, or these laws.

before the anti gun nuts take away my arsenal because ...at a certain point being the ONLY country with all these mass casualty events by legal firearms will have to be brought to an end


Sweden has almost 100% gun ownership by household. and almost NO such crime.

because they have similar standards to what i suggest.

i know. it's complicated to realize maybe unsafe or untrained people shouldnt' shoot guns (or certain types, depending on training). but is it really>

So is it that motor vehicles don't need regulation, or is it "motor vehicles check"? You're buckling under pressure.

Citation for Sweden having almost 100% gun ownership?

 

[21stcenturyrights]

It's really strange that you claim to be a gun owner, but so often refer to gun owners as if "they" are a category separate from you. Force of habit?

nope.

"we" are the (sad few) gun owners who I met that want to craft a soluton to the problem by limiting gun ownership to those who are trained on them and not dangerous in their personalities or backgrounds.

"they" are the rest of the ones (like...every gun owner I met here) who wants to fight the very IDEA of there being a solution...and just let the kids get killed by legal firearms bought by people making it clear what their goals were in taking a weapon to that school or mall.

we can stop this (gun owners and clubs) but choose not to.

someday, the other side will stop it and until then the blood is on all our hands.

 

[Lursa]

Again, I am not asking him to justify. I am asking him because I have not fired a gun since I was a child, and am legitimately curious. I am not asking him in the context of justifying a right.

OK

 

[21stcenturyrights]

So are you advocating passing a test to buy a motor vehicle? That was the context of your "motor vehicle check" comment it seems you suddenly remember.

And are we discussing accident prevention, or mass murders? You're all over the map.

ok, i've answered repeatedly your motor vehicle crap. i'm blocking youif it comes up again. read the thread. the title. the first post. or go away

 

[donhughesmusic]

a respectable poster...

Really? Me? Respectable? I don't hear that combination of words often.

 

[21stcenturyrights]

b

So is it that motor vehicles don't need regulation, or is it "motor vehicles check"? You're buckling under pressure.

Citation for Sweden having almost 100% gun ownership?

blocked. thanks!

 

[RF667799]

I'm not noonereal or your wife. You're assuming what I am going to say based on what those two say, two people who I have never met.

Yeah, and I've told you that I wasn't directing my remarks to you in particular. Just at this notion of having to justify one's actions by explaining the need. A thread where it has already been preemptively claimed that nobody needs this or that, might not be the best thread to satisfy your curiosity about the purposes someone has for the items he owns.

"You don't need a motorcycle!", said my Mom once. See? It's a paternalistic, "I know what's better for you than you know yourself" attitude. My Mom can get away with it.

Now, I already told you of several reasons why I need my AR-15, because you said you had an honest curiosity.

 

[RF667799]

I own about 40 firearms. Just so we are clear.

and yes. figting basic solutions while the problem gets worse, and offering NO solutions of their own. makes them complcit.

now will you answer why people who can't handle the weapon, or are unsafe and dangerous people should have firearms.

it's not a hard question.

It also isn't something I've ever claimed, but you ask as if I have.

Who is going to administer these tests every time someone buys ammunition, again? I think you've neglected to answer that.

 

[RF667799]

b

blocked. thanks!

And just in time to avoid answering for your Sweden claim!

 

[Lursa]

And just in time to avoid answering for your Sweden claim!

Well, that shouldnt stop you from responding and proving his posts wrong when applicable...and if he doesnt want to defend or counter

I'm always interested in the actual debate.

 

[RF667799]

nope.

"we" are the (sad few) gun owners who I met that want to craft a soluton to the problem by limiting gun ownership to those who are trained on them and not dangerous in their personalities or backgrounds.

"they" are the rest of the ones (like...every gun owner I met here) who wants to fight the very IDEA of there being a solution...and just let the kids get killed by legal firearms bought by people making it clear what their goals were in taking a weapon to that school or mall.

we can stop this (gun owners and clubs) but choose not to.

someday, the other side will stop it and until then the blood is on all our hands.

Yeah...you're really chewing the scenery, but you just ain't putting it over.

Why do you have nothing but fallaciously complex questions, but no real practical suggestions for implementing these plans you speak of?

Who is going to administer the tests to buy ammunition? What are the tests going to consist of? How is any of this going to work at all?

 

[RF667799]

Well, that shouldnt stop you from responding and proving his posts wrong when applicable...and if he doesnt want to defend or counter

I'm always interested in the actual debate.

It never does. I took my cue from you on that, actually. Don't let it go to your head.