Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control

[The Brad Dad]

Now you've stretched your alternate reality even more, and for good measure included a private language and your own version of an RF667799.

The only alternate reality on display is republican men insisting they can protect *anyone* with their guns. LOL

 

[RF667799]

It's funny you bring that up, I was going to tell you I absolutely believe some laws should be ignored.

So not only do law abiding citizens not exist, there's reason why they shouldn't.

(Told y'all that was the destination. )

If for example a situation came up where I could safely get undocumented away from an ICE raid, I'd do it without hesitation.

This is interesting though. "Without hesitation", but let's make sure I don't get caught. Lol

Just like you wouldn't respect the constitution if it didnt' give you what you wanted.

 

[The Brad Dad]

So not only do law abiding citizens not exist, there's reason why they shouldn't.

So you think most gun owners wouldnt' comply with a constitutional amendment.

 

[RF667799]

So you think most gun owners wouldnt' comply with a constitutional amendment.

That's the story you're working on. You just have to get the details right.

 

[The Brad Dad]

That's the story you're working on. You just have to get the details right.

You usually run from your own answers much later in these exchanges. Oh well.

 

[RF667799]

You usually run from your own answers much later in these exchanges. Oh well.

I haven't run from my answer at all. I want you to keep manufacturing your narrative story, and massaging the details until it is just right. (Even when that necessitates you editing other people's posts.)

But it looks like you're the one running.

 

[RF667799]

The only alternate reality on display is republican men insisting they can protect *anyone* with their guns. LOL

*another chapter in the story*

 

[JMB1911A1]

It's funny you bring that up, I was going to tell you I absolutely believe some laws should be ignored. If for example a situation came up where I could safely get undocumented away from an ICE raid, I'd do it without hesitation. Just like you wouldn't respect the constitution if it didnt' give you what you wanted.

So, you really don’t have courage of your convictions since they are conditional on their being you not having to suffer the consequences.

 

[The Brad Dad]

So, you really don’t have courage of your convictions since they are conditional on their being you not having to suffer the consequences.

Maybe. It would make me no different than the good guys with guns at Uvalde, or your believing in the Constitution only when it's convenient to a belief.

 

[RF667799]

Maybe. It would make me no different than the good guys with guns at Uvalde, or your believing in the Constitution only when it's convenient to a belief.

Tell him about the children!

 

[JMB1911A1]

Maybe. It would make me no different than the good guys with guns at Uvalde, or your believing in the Constitution only when it's convenient to a belief.

Wow, you changed your answer pretty quickly after admitting to having no convictions.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Wow, you changed your answer pretty quickly after admitting to having no convictions.

YOu changed your entire philosophy about the Constitution over one question.

Folks who need guns to get an oil change insisting it's someone else whose bravery is convenience-based is why you didn't even have the guns to answer my question.

 

[RF667799]

YOu changed your entire philosophy about the Constitution over one question.

Folks who need guns to get an oil change insisting it's someone else whose bravery is convenience-based is why you didn't even have the guns to answer my question.

You said your bravery was contingent on safely accomplishing your brave action.

Hardly the same as diving into a rushing river to save a toddler.

Oh shit...sorry about mentioning children. You used to have that bullet in your meager arsenal, but you gave it to me for safekeeping.

 

[The Brad Dad]

You said your bravery was contingent on safely accomplishing your brave action.

Of course. What good does it to the undocumented in my scenario if I get them killed or hurt? Oh..wait...you'r ea gun guy, you don't believe you can save lives unless a bunch of school kids get shot up first. **** was I thinking?

 

[dairyair]

If you are against the right to own firearms in the United States, even if you just want to legislate out things liberals call "assault rifles".

How do you plan to work with the fact the there are approximately 400 million (probably way more) in circulation.

There are more guns that people in the US and guns last longer than car and a human.

Gun legislation is not a new thing, guns have been continuous legislated every decade to no effect.

So if gun legislation is the answer, then why hasn't it worked the countless times its been implemented?

And how do you do so without clearly violating the bill of rights?

When is it time for the left to focus maybe just even a little bit on things like uhhh...... prescription drugs, metal health, culture or media handling of mass shooting.

even if you still believe in gun legislation somehow, do you really think you have great take on the issue, when the issues just above are seldom talked about or given attention by your side of the isle by any sort or recognizable degree.

According to the 2A, bearable arms 'shall not be infringed'.

But there are many many bearable arms that are infringed. Ever try to buy a fully auto rifle? Or a grenade launcher?

Many people of gun supporters don't have much issue with some infringements of arms.

Every person has a line in the sand on where they'd like the issues of bearable arms drawn.

 

[dairyair]

If you are against the right to own firearms in the United States, even if you just want to legislate out things liberals call "assault rifles".

How do you plan to work with the fact the there are approximately 400 million (probably way more) in circulation.

There are more guns that people in the US and guns last longer than car and a human.

Gun legislation is not a new thing, guns have been continuous legislated every decade to no effect.

So if gun legislation is the answer, then why hasn't it worked the countless times its been implemented?

And how do you do so without clearly violating the bill of rights?

When is it time for the left to focus maybe just even a little bit on things like uhhh...... prescription drugs, metal health, culture or media handling of mass shooting.

even if you still believe in gun legislation somehow, do you really think you have great take on the issue, when the issues just above are seldom talked about or given attention by your side of the isle by any sort or recognizable degree.

Cars have to be registered.
Users of cars have to pass tests and be licensed to drive said registered cars.
Users need to retake eye exams and renew their DL every so often.
Cars need to be registered yearly. With the place of home being listed.

Are you sure the left is the ones who doesn't get it?
Afterall, every person in the world has their very little own line in the sand drawn when it comes to arms infringements.

Where's your line?
You ok with citizens bearing claymore mines? They are bearable arms.

 

[RF667799]

Of course. What good does it to the undocumented in my scenario if I get them killed or hurt? Oh..wait...you'r ea gun guy, you don't believe you can save lives unless a bunch of school kids get shot up first. **** was I thinking?

Oh...now it isn't your own safety you're concerned with. How convenient.

BTW, you somehow edited out a great deal of my post. I'll repeat it for you.

You said your bravery was contingent on safely accomplishing your brave action.

Hardly the same as diving into a rushing river to save a toddler.

Oh shit...sorry about mentioning children. You used to have that bullet in your meager arsenal, but you gave it to me for safekeeping.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Oh...now it isn't your own safety you're concerned with. How convenient.

I"m a father and husband. So anytime I worry about my physical safety, it's not just me involved. Republicans don't consider these things when pretending to be tough guys online.

 

[RF667799]

I"m a father and husband. So anytime I worry about my physical safety, it's not just me involved. Republicans don't consider these things when pretending to be tough guys online.

You're only now mentioning them after your Harriet Tubman impression was found wanting.

But we get it. You'll only break laws when it's safe and convenient.

That still supports your position that nobody is law abiding, so what are you complaining about?

 

[The Brad Dad]

But we get it

Who are you *speaking for*

 

[JMB1911A1]

According to the 2A, bearable arms 'shall not be infringed'.

But there are many many bearable arms that are infringed. Ever try to buy a fully auto rifle? Or a grenade launcher?

Absolutely legal. All I have to do is go to an FFL/SOT, pay my money, submit my form for a tax stamp, and wait. And the wait is getting down to single digit days.

Many people of gun supporters don't have much issue with some infringements of arms.

Every person has a line in the sand on where they'd like the issues of bearable arms drawn.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Cars have to be registered.

Not to own one.

Users of cars have to pass tests and be licensed to drive said registered cars.

On public roads.

Users need to retake eye exams and renew their DL every so often.

Only for use in public roads.

Cars need to be registered yearly. With the place of home being listed.

Only for use on public roads.

Are you sure the left is the ones who doesn't get it?

Yup. The left doesn’t get it. You have no idea of what you are taking about.

If guns were regulated like cars:

- I could legally take my gun to any private range (99% of ranges are privately owned) in my car. Just like towing my race car to any track.
- No requirement for a license to buy a gun (or license to buy a car).
- No age limit to buy a gun (vehicle).
- Unlimited use of gun (vehicle) on private property with no license needed.
- 100% reciprocity of guns (vehicles) in every state. CA may ban ARs but my FL registered AR is allowed in CA just like my diesel truck.
- 100% reciprocity of licenses. I can drive in every state of union plus DC with a FL license, so I should be able to carry everywhere as well, right?

Afterall, every person in the world has their very little own line in the sand drawn when it comes to arms infringements.

Where's your line?
You ok with citizens bearing claymore mines? They are bearable arms.

Claymore mines are destructive devices and you can own one if you follow ATF procedures.

 

[RF667799]

Who are you *speaking for*

My post was spuriously edited and yours is rejected on that basis.

 

[L88]

If you are against the right to own firearms in the United States, even if you just want to legislate out things liberals call "assault rifles".

How do you plan to work with the fact the there are approximately 400 million (probably way more) in circulation.

There are more guns that people in the US and guns last longer than car and a human.

Gun legislation is not a new thing, guns have been continuous legislated every decade to no effect.

So if gun legislation is the answer, then why hasn't it worked the countless times its been implemented?

And how do you do so without clearly violating the bill of rights?

When is it time for the left to focus maybe just even a little bit on things like uhhh...... prescription drugs, metal health, culture or media handling of mass shooting.

even if you still believe in gun legislation somehow, do you really think you have great take on the issue, when the issues just above are seldom talked about or given attention by your side of the isle by any sort or recognizable degree.

From the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights 1776. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state". The Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights was a foundation for the Bill of Rights.

 

[Spock]

You pointed out no errors.



Nobody said they can't be. You're trying to support a circular argument you were called on, by appealing to an irrelevant strawman.

You seem to be labelling action-consequence as a circular argument, which it is not.

You use the terms, you must define them. So as to avoid equivocation or private definitions later. Which is likely why you refuse to define your terms.

Only one word necessary here: dictionary.