Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control

[NolanVoyd]

You seem to be avoiding the concept of ownership. It's not required to have a license to own a motor vehicle.

Neither are motor vehicles required to be registered, EXCEPT for those used on public roads.

Drivers are not required to be licensed, EXCEPT in the case of driving on public roads.

You got the exceptions backwards

The vast majority of autos, like over 99% are required to be registered EXCEPT those that will only be used on privaye propery. Which is exceedingly rare.

Same with drivers.

See how easy that was?

It was ridiculous.

Don't try to play rhetorical games with me.

You are the one playing games.

 

[RF667799]

You got the exceptions backwards

The vast majority of autos, like over 99% are required to be registered EXCEPT those that will only be used on privaye propery. Which is exceedingly rare.

Same with drivers.

It was ridiculous.

You are the one playing games.

No motor vehicles are required to be registered UNLESS they are used on public roads. The registration is a condition of the use of public roads.

And absolutely nobody is required to have a driver's license to own a motor vehicle.

Two facts you're struggling with.

 

[The Brad Dad]

. It's not required to have a license to own a motor vehicle.

Only if you want to use it.

 

[RF667799]

Only if you want to use it.

You're wrong. Only if you want to drive it yourself on public roads. You can be incapable of getting a driver's license and still own a car.

BTW, your habit of editing the posts of others to remove context and most of the argument is a tell.

 

[NolanVoyd]

No motor vehicles are required to be registered UNLESS they are used on public roads

which is damn near all of them.

And absolutely nobody is required to have a driver's license to own a motor vehicle.

Drivers are required to have a drivers license.....with the rare exception of those who only drive on private property.

Two facts you're struggling with.

You are, once again, making a fool of yourself.

 

[RF667799]

which is damn near all of them.

Doesn't matter. My statement is true.

Drivers are required to have a drivers license.....with the rare exception of those who only drive on private property.

You changed what I said. Nobody is required to have a driver's license to own a vehicle. Fact.

You are, once again, making a fool of yourself.

By clearing up your confusion?

BTW, you chose to remove a single sentence from my post, and I think it's clear why.

Here's the sentence you edited out:
The registration is a condition of the use of public roads.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Doesn't matter.

of course it matters.

You changed what I said. Nobody is required to have a driver's license to own a vehicle. Fact.

Fact. They are required to have a drivers license in over 99% of cases with the narrow exception of driving on private property.

The registration is a condition of the use of public roads.

Freaking Duh!

Thats like 99% plus of autos.

 

[RF667799]

of course it matters.

How does it matter? Do you disagree that my statement is true? Here it is again:

No motor vehicles are required to be registered UNLESS they are used on public roads. The registration is a condition of the use of public roads.

Fact. They are required to have a drivers license in over 99% of cases with the narrow exception of driving on private property.

Nobody. Nobody. Nobody is required to have a driver's license to OWN a motor vehicle. I guess you think it is unnoticeable that you keep addressing something different from what I said.

Freaking Duh!

Thats like 99% plus of autos.

I don't believe you. Support your claim, and then show its relevance.

 

[NolanVoyd]

How does it matter? Do you disagree that my statement is true? Here it is again:

No motor vehicles are required to be registered UNLESS they are used on public roads. The registration is a condition of the use of public roads.



Nobody. Nobody. Nobody is required to have a driver's license to OWN a motor vehicle. I guess you think it is unnoticeable that you keep addressing something different from what I said.



I don't believe you. Support your claim, and then show its relevance.

Reflect on your silly straw grasping semantic games. Its not working.

 

[RF667799]

Reflect on your silly straw grasping semantic games. Its not working.

Since you have no substantive response and are reduced to personal attacks, I accept your surrender.

 

[The Brad Dad]

You're wrong. Only if you want to drive it yourself on public roads. You can be incapable of getting a driver's license and still own a car.

BTW, your habit of editing the posts of others to remove context and most of the argument is a tell.

I'm not, you're just playing semantics.

Your habit of stalling and playing semantics is a red flag.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Since you have no substantive response and are reduced to personal attacks, I accept your surrender.

Quote where he surrendered?

 

[RF667799]

I'm not, you're just playing semantics.

Your habit of stalling and playing semantics is a red flag.

You disagree that you can be incapable of getting a driver's license, and still own a car?

 

[JMB1911A1]

Not this stupid ****ing shit about cars again.

But if you want to go down this road.

- 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 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?

 

[RF667799]

Quote where he surrendered?

It's implicit when a poster has nothing left but deflection, personal attacks, and addressing things that were never said.

You can view him as winning if you want, though.

 

[RF667799]

Not this stupid ****ing shit about cars again.

But if you want to go down this road.

- 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 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?

But...but....there's stoplights and speed limits and....stuff.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don’t have the right to use my car as I wish. I don’t have the right to sell prescription drugs on the street.

So?

Society makes rules to deal with potentially dangerous items.

Firms are dangerous items a piece of Cobalt 60 is.

My right to feel safe on the street is just as important as someone’s right to bear arms. The latter is infringed all the time.

Even if you have a right to feel safe you're right to feel safe ends at the muzzle of my gun.

Essentially someone could not feel safe around bit so we don't go exterminating all the men because someone has the right to feel safe.

The US systematically deprived Indians of their land, breaking just about every treaty we made with them. The country started out hugging the east coast and wound up in California. Our manifest destiny was no different than the Germans libensraum. We deprived them of land, culture and confined them to, for example, Oklahoma, which of course we then took away as well. There is debate over whether or not this was genocide, but if you look up the definition, it certainly comes close. “The deliberate, systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion or race.”

It wasn't a genocide it was a war it wasn't because of the rain so it's because of territory your historically illiterate on this. I'll just throw out everything you say about it. Even if I believe it wasn't genocide even if I was stupid enough to fall for the nonsense you spew. If you're up that was for genocides ago

In a way, the unbelievable genocidal horrors of the Holocaust, so over the top evil, have made us unable to see and categorize lesser instances.

You're seeing a war is genocide because your mind was roasted by public school and you have no curiosity.

Anytime you open your mouth on the subject I will just go ahead and write you up and it's not knowing anything.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ah this old pretend slam dunk argument. How do you get it from the dealers to your house? Ok, have it delivered by a driver — who has a a license. Drive in circles on your property. Have gas delivered. But never leave.

The point is vehicles are only regulated because of the roadway and dangerous environment where you're necessarily put everyone at risk. Carrying a gun does not necessarily put everyone at risk. A list for me all the risks of carrying a firearm without including drawing it and firing it because I would only do that and very specific circumstances.

 

[CLAX1911]

Only if you want to use it.

Only on the roadway.

 

[CLAX1911]

Quote where he surrendered?

When you have nothing else you've lost.

 

[Nickyjo]

Sure you do.

Some do. And some have higher deaths related to guns. Because guns are irrelevant to homicide and suicide rates.

The data shows they don’t.

I’ve refuted your premise made by every person who’s brought it up. Because the data is what it is. Guns are not relevant to homicide suicide rates.

That’s not what many sources say: American Journal of Medicine, the NIH, CDC, Rockefeller Institute, John’s Hopkins, National Safety Council, American Public Health Association and others.

 

[CLAX1911]

That’s not what many sources say: American Journal of Medicine, the NIH, CDC, Rockefeller Institute, John’s Hopkins, National Safety Council, American Public Health Association and others.

Political institutions that want to take away people's rights and do so under the cover of pretending they care about yours safety and they don't they want to violate or safety.

The government cannot keep you safe if it could why are you sitting here whining about safety the government is more powerful than it ever has been.

Not being able to defend yourself that takes away your safety.

 

[rahl]

I think you mean meaningless to your reality, which consists of making up really stupid arguments and then "nope-ing" for 30 or 40 pages.

It’s so funny when you have to edit people’s post because you’ve had your position curb stomped.


Here’s my entire post you had to edit because it demolished your premise…….In this context, there isn’t. A gun can be used to kill. A softball bat can be used to kill. This is as far as you can and will ever be able to get with the moronic “guns are designed to kill” stupidity.

 

[rahl]

View attachment 67582216

I accept your concession.

 

[rahl]

That’s not what many sources say: American Journal of Medicine, the NIH, CDC, Rockefeller Institute, John’s Hopkins, National Safety Council, American Public Health Association and others.

It’s what the actual data says. Guns went up, homicides went down. Sucks forum banners I know, But reality doesn’t care about your ideology.