How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[Feynman Lives!]

Yes so you can play The complex clan version of the interpretation of the amendment...

I don't know how this "clan" of your interprets the 2nd A. All I know is how the FRAMERS interpreted it.

I would advice you to stay away from those thread. You'd need to be VERY prepared... And clearly, you're not!

 

[CLAX1911]

The problem is that you have no comprehension of what you “read” and cannot see to realize why it is stupid.

For example, you previously linked to the proposed 2023 Assault Weapons Ban as a source of a definition (though I note that your link seems to have disappeared).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/25/text

Under that exceedingly stupid definition, the pistol illustrated below with an 8 round magazine is considered an “assault weapon”. Once again, proof that gun control advocates are ignorant of basic technology and how things work.

He didn't define assault weapon so I'm going to define it when he uses the term it's a weapon used to assault someone like a frying pan or a rolling pin and I think everyone should do this until he summons the courage to embarrass himself.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't know how this "clan" of your interprets the 2nd A.

Yeah you're ignorant I know.

All I know is how the FRAMERS interpreted it.

Then you know why your proposals just won't work they're in violation of the framers interpretation.

I would advice you to stay away from those thread.

Yeah you don't want to get embarrassed in those too huh

You'd need to be VERY prepared... And clearly, you're not!

Seems I'm more prepared than you so I'm sorry for your embarrassment.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

No, you proposed a de facto ban on all guns in your OP when you proposed banning ammunition.

And THAT, boys and girls, is how you ban assault weapons without firing a single shot!

I can't even begin to tell you how happy it makes me that you came to the conclusion that my proposals would accomplish that all on your own!

 

[RF667799]

I absolutely SHOULD. If getting a gun license is a bigger burden to you than getting a driver's license, then maybe you SHOULDN'T have a gun.

Didn't you say that a gun license would be a bigger burden?

That is just for comparison. It does NOT give you some license to derail the thread by changing the topic to the DMV.

We've seen this idea some posters have that they can reference something, but any response to it is off topic. It's just a way to cover up ignorance and incompetence in debate.

I see... So your best argument was that it would be too much of a burden for you to demonstrate that you know how to operate a gun (including safety and maintenance issues), and that you're not a criminal.

I have often proposed universal background checks for the possession of guns and motor vehicles.

What you have proven is that you're the PERFECT example of somebody who should NOT own a gun. And something tells me that you do. THAT is what this is intended to correct!

My case is made...

Your case was manufactured to insult someone?

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Didn't you say that a gun license would be a bigger burden?

Feel free to use the "Search" function of the forum if you need to find out what I have said.

Or simply scroll up at your convenience.

 

[CLAX1911]

And THAT, boys and girls, is how you ban assault weapons without firing a single shot!

Assault is already banned so I don't think you can have a weapon that you've already assaulted somebody with

I can't even begin to tell you how happy it makes me that you came to the conclusion that my proposals would accomplish that all on your own!

So you want a world that empowers criminals. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

[JMB1911A1]

I don't know how this "clan" of your interprets the 2nd A. All I know is how the FRAMERS interpreted it.

I would advice you to stay away from those thread. You'd need to be VERY prepared... And clearly, you're not!

You proved your lack of knowledge even more in that thread than this one.

The founders always believed in the individual right to keep and bear arms and that including all arms up to and including all military grade weaponry. At the time of the founding of this country, individuals owned cannons and even warships.

 

[RF667799]

And THAT, boys and girls, is how you ban assault weapons without firing a single shot!

I can't even begin to tell you how happy it makes me that you came to the conclusion that my proposals would accomplish that all on your own!

I'm happy you admitted the effects of your proposals would be a de facto ban on all guns. You spent a large amount of the thread duplicitously denying that you intended to ban anything. In fact, you said the title you authored was just a joke.

OP rejected as dishonest, radical fever dreams.

 

[CLAX1911]

Feel free to use the "Search" function of the forum if you need to find out what I have said.

Do you not stand by your your words because you know you're full of crap?

Or simply scroll up at your convenience.

Because you'll do anything except for stand by your words.

 

[CLAX1911]

You proved your lack of knowledge even more in that thread than this one.

The founders always believed in the individual right to keep and bear arms and that including all arms up to and including all military grade weaponry. At the time of the founding of this country, individuals owned cannons and even warships.

Yeah he doesn't understand.

 

[RF667799]

Feel free to use the "Search" function of the forum if you need to find out what I have said.

Or simply scroll up at your convenience.

I'm sorry you can't remember what you've said.

Guess who: NO! It should absolutely NOT be like getting a drivers license. But in some states it's harder to get a driver's license than getting a gun. It should be much MUCH harder.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm happy you admitted the effects of your proposals would be a de facto ban on all guns. You spent a large amount of the thread duplicitously denying that you intended to ban anything. In fact, you said the title you authored was just a joke.

OP rejected as dishonest, radical fever dreams.

Well I read the op and of course he uses a lot of profoundly ignorant terms that he refuses to define.

I mean cop killer bullets? We always just call them bullets are like cops immune to all bullets except for a certain kind.

If you can't tell by my words my stomach hurts from all the laughing.

This is the level of intelligence we're up against no wonder reciprocity in all 50 states is right around the corner.

The absolute dumbest people that ever lived there in charge of this.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm sorry you can't remember what you've said.

It's not that he can't remember it's lack of integrity and the lack of intellectual honesty.

That's what you have to have in order to post that joke of an OP and think you cooked with that.

Guess who: NO! It should absolutely NOT be like getting a drivers license. But in some states it's harder to get a driver's license than getting a gun. It should be much MUCH harder.

Well that's like saying it should be hard to be secure in your person papers and belongings you should have to get a license not to have warrantless searches.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

The founders always believed in the individual right to keep and bear arms ...

They sure did!!!

You have the link. Now you have the opportunity to learn what that meant to them.

Of course, we all know that you won't.....

 

[RF667799]

It's not that he can't remember it's lack of integrity and the lack of intellectual honesty.

That's what you have to have in order to post that joke of an OP and think you cooked with that.

Well that's like saying it should be hard to be secure in your person papers and belongings you should have to get a license not to have warrantless searches.

He has said that you shouldn't have a gun if the licensing procedure was more burdensome to you than getting a driver's license.

Then he admits the gun license would be designed to be more burdensome.

Just duplicitous double talk all the way from page 1.

 

[CLAX1911]

They sure did!!!

Arms which include AR-15s AK-47s and the like

You have the link.

You can just Google the second amendment it's easy to find you should know it.

Now you have the opportunity to learn what that meant to them.

It meant what it says that's why they wrote it that way.

They weren't like you they spoke clearly and in no uncertain terms

Of course, we all know that you won't.....

I did this is all old hat for me.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I'm sorry you can't remember what you've said.

Guess who: NO! It should absolutely NOT be like getting a drivers license. But in some states it's harder to get a driver's license than getting a gun. It should be much MUCH harder.

I don't know who, but sounds like somebody very very bright!

I agree with... whoever that was... that that is how it SHOULD be!

 

[CLAX1911]

He has said that you shouldn't have a gun if the licensing procedure was more burdensome to you than getting a driver's license.

I'm sorry I have to keep pointing this out it's just that it's so ****ing stupid. He said cop killer bullets like cops are magical elves that you can't just shoot with any bullet and that be lethal.

I actually break into laughter every time I think about this.

You really shouldn't take a person seriously that says something that stupid.

Then he admits the gun license would be designed to be more burdensome.

Just duplicitous double talk all the way from page 1.

Well yeah the end goal is oppression that's the point it's not new they knew this back in 1795 when they wrote the second amendment that's why they wrote it because they just fled a country like this dude wants to set up here.

He's desperate to repeat mistakes in history. Somehow he thinks cops are immune to every type of bullet but a certain kind but also thinks he's figured out how to do oppressive monarchy in a way that British failed at.

Laugh at this dude or feel sorry for him.

 

[RF667799]

I don't know who, but sounds like somebody very very bright!

I agree with... whoever that was... that that is how it SHOULD be!

Whoever it was certainly did a good job exposing the slimy nature of the various disconnected fallacies you propose as arguments.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if it was you who said that?

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't know who, but sounds like somebody very very bright!

Says the man who thinks that cops are magically immune to everything but a certain kind of bullet.

Any attempts to mock someone's intelligence from you is hilarious did you read your own thing or did you just have chat GPT type it for you?

I agree with... whoever that was... that that is how it SHOULD be!

Well we fought a whole war not do what you want so we're probably not going to do that.

 

[jaeger19]

Sure it rebuts it. First you had to lie about how it would work and what it would entail.
In fact you still haven’t given any details of how it would actually be implemented .
Therefore you cannot logically have ANY expectation it will work to do anything but needlessly restrict law abiding citizens.

If I told you that I had a proposal that would lower greenhouse gases .
And when you questioned me about the details of how it would work , I couldn’t provide ANY explicit details about it, would it be logical to assume this proposal would work?
No it wouldn’t.

You can be sure that getting shot with an assault rifle is MORE an "undue burden" to the person who was shot and / or their family than you having to prove that you are not a criminal, that you are not crazy, and that you know how to handle a gun before you can purchase one.

Except you offer zero proof that your proposal would in anyway deter a criminal, or “ crazy person “ from obtaining a firearm.
It’s already illegal for prohibited people like criminals and mentally incompetent people to own firearms much less purchase them.

Which doesn't just mean that you know how to pull a trigger, but that you know the basic security and maintenance issues of owning a firearm.

Explain exactly how you see that competence test working.
Is your expectation that I show up at the county sheriffs office, stroll in with my loaded at 15 to prove to them that I can handle loading , unloading, firing and maintaining the weapon?

If demonstrating that is too much of a "burden" (YOUR word) to you, then maybe YOU shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.

Why? Explain why a person who can’t take off time during the week or afford 1. to take a safety course if done type , 2. pay for a mental health exam, 3. Take time off to show competency. Etc.
Shows that they shouldn’t face a firearm

Explain how being poor and having a strong work ethic indicates you shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a firearm.

 

[RF667799]

Sure it rebuts it. First you had to lie about how it would work and what it would entail.
In fact you still haven’t given any details of how it would actually be implemented .
Therefore you cannot logically have ANY expectation it will work to do anything but needlessly restrict law abiding citizens.

If I told you that I had a proposal that would lower greenhouse gases .
And when you questioned me about the details of how it would work , I couldn’t provide ANY explicit details about it, would it be logical to assume this proposal would work?
No it wouldn’t.


Except you offer zero proof that your proposal would in anyway deter a criminal, or “ crazy person “ from obtaining a firearm.
It’s already illegal for prohibited people like criminals and mentally incompetent people to own firearms much less purchase them.


Explain exactly how you see that competence test working.
Is your expectation that I show up at the county sheriffs office, stroll in with my loaded at 15 to prove to them that I can handle loading , unloading, firing and maintaining the weapon?


Why? Explain why a person who can’t take off time during the week or afford 1. to take a safety course if done type , 2. pay for a mental health exam, 3. Take time off to show competency. Etc.
Shows that they shouldn’t face a firearm

Explain how being poor and having a strong work ethic indicates you shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a firearm.

He has admitted his proposals are just a path to a de facto ban on all guns in private hands.

That they are burdensome to peaceful people and dismissive of Constitutional Rights and civil liberties is a feature, the way he views it.

I think we all realized that from the beginning, but it's been fun watching him try to pretend he just wants reasonable, common sense gun control.

 

[JMB1911A1]

They sure did!!!

You have the link. Now you have the opportunity to learn what that meant to them.

Of course, we all know that you won't.....

I see that you don’t have the courtesy to extend to others what you demand for yourself. Don’t quote me out of context or only partially quote me.

I didn't say you did or didn't quote me out of context. I'm only asking that you use the quote function when you are referencing something I say so we can all see the context.

In any case.... you just appear obsessed with the DMV. I have ZERO interest in debating driver's licenses. If you have an argument.... ANY argument... to rebut my proposal about a "graduation process" for a license in order to buy a gun... I'd be happy to listen (BTW, it wasn't mine.... I borrowed it from pro-gun advocates). Or, if you prefer to babble about the DMV, feel free to open your own thread.

I don't know what you're talking about. If you have something to comment about what I said, use the forum's QUOTE function. Unless the only way you can make a point is to take something out of context.

Forget driving licenses and the DMV. That was just a side comment to respond to a specific question by a specific poster. If you have anything to REBUT the point made in the OP, go ahead! If not then, yet again, my point is made!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Arms which include AR-15s AK-47s and the like

And tanks, and F16s and nuclear subs. Makes ZERO difference to my point. I mean, who knows.... the framers would probably be SHOCKED to find that We The People are not allowed to own a Nuclear Weapon.

So? Did you have a point? Still waiting for a rebuttal of ANY of my proposals, you know...

Here is the link, in case you want to start learning about the 2nd A from historians, linguists and... from the framers themselves!

Off topic here, though. But if you have any INTELLIGENT comments, I'll be happy to respond to them in THAT thread