How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[rahl]

View attachment 67577726

Spam

 

[rahl]

Exactly! Amazingly we agree! And THIS is why they shouldn't just be allowed to walk into a gun shop and walk out with an assault weapon. At the very minimum they need to PROVE that they know how to handle it safely.

The constitution won’t let you impose such a moronic requirement.

 

[Spock]

Again, a special law when it comes to guns. Can I put you in the category of someone who maliciously wants to disarm peaceful people?

So, you must favor conditions that pose a risk to children.

 

[Spock]

It could have been done with a public service announcement.

By your reasoning, there is no need for traffic laws.

No. We already have punishment for negligence.

Part of the rationale for law is to change behavior BEFORE injury or death occurs.

What you want to do is punish gun owners when something bad HASNT happened.

I want gun owners to stop endangering others by reckless behavior. Apparently preventing and educating about dangerous behavior is not important to you.

 

[Spock]

There appears to be no rhyme or reason to your opinion. But since it is just your opinion, I guess that's okay.

Also, you propose adult access be limited. We were talking about children.

It should be clear to you that NO children should have access to handguns or semi-autos and no children should have access to long guns unsupervised.
It is not a complex idea.

 

[RF667799]

So, you must favor conditions that pose a risk to children.

Non sequitur. Rejected on that basis.

 

[RF667799]

It should be clear to you that NO children should have access to handguns or semi-autos and no children should have access to long guns unsupervised.
It is not a complex idea.

It isn't complex.

It's simplistic and nothing but your unsupported opinion.

You might as well be telling us that you prefer Pepsi to Coke.

 

[Spock]

Non sequitur. Rejected on that basis.

If you do not support law to prevent childhood access to firearms, the conclusion must be that you are not concerned with the welfare of children.

 

[Spock]

It isn't complex.

It's simplistic and nothing but your unsupported opinion.

You might as well be telling us that you prefer Pepsi to Coke.

Firearms are not a carbonated beverage.

 

[RF667799]

If you do not support law to prevent childhood access to firearms, the conclusion must be that you are not concerned with the welfare of children.

Do you support law to limit the speeds of motor vehicles to 25 mph and require NASCAR safety gear for all occupants?

If not, the conclusion is you don't care about the lives of the people who would not perish or be grievously injured in traffic mishaps...including any number of children.

 

[RF667799]

Firearms are not a carbonated beverage.

But your opinion on firearm access is nothing but opinion. No support. Like bleating that Pepsi is better than Coke.

 

[CLAX1911]

Firearms are not a carbonated beverage.

That's a false equivalence. Why is it you accuse everyone else with that but you do it yourself more than anyone else.

There's no way you think he would say firearms were carbonated beverages.

 

[CLAX1911]

But your opinion on firearm access is nothing but opinion. No support. Like bleating that Pepsi is better than Coke.

Well it's all the means to get to the ends which is laws that make people less likely to own firearms. The desire to make it too complicated to navigate the laws so that to avoid breaking them you just don't do it.

You or me will figure out how to do it legally and will probably be on mountain top spreading the gospel on how to do it legally and undermine these crackpots that is my primary political function. But the average person who's not so into it like you and me will probably err on the side of not doing anything illegal.

It's not to convince you he knows he can't. It is to spread fear and ignorance to people who may not be as clear on everything as you and I are.

 

[RF667799]

That's a false equivalence. Why is it you accuse everyone else with that but you do it yourself more than anyone else.

There's no way you think he would say firearms were carbonated beverages.

Sometimes I think those posts are just generated by some cut-rate AI from the Gun Control Industry.

 

[jaeger19]

If I pose a threat to myself or others, a judge can order my driving license taken away. There is a red-flag law for driving. Why not for owning an assault weapon! Are you afraid a judge might deem you a danger?

Actually if you pose a threat to yourself or others the judge can remand you to an inpatient treatment facility.
Your drivers license and whatever else is moot.
Cripes if you are danger to yourself or othersTHERE IS NO WAY YOU SHOULD BE IN THE COMMUNITY..

This has got to be the the greatest intellectual disconnect I have seen .

So a person is AN IMMINENT DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS”
And your thought is “ we’ll pull his drivers license and gun license.”

And not “ they need to be removed from society into inpatient treatment???

You'll need more to use a machine designed to KILL than one designed to take you from point A to point B. My response was about you complaining about the 2 hour wait.

But now we learn that all you can pass is an eye exam and quick background check.

 

[jaeger19]

Is that all you could pass?

On another forum (the one I originally brought this up in) some responsible gun owners (you probably wouldn't know anything about that) brought up the need for a "graduation process". That's where I got the lingo on the OP from. They felt there was a series of requirements that should be met before obtaining a license to own guns. Responsible gun experts would determine exactly what those requirements would be. But my proposal is that there SHOULD be more requirements than there are to drive a car. And consider the fact that, to drive a car, you need to pass a theoretical test and a practical test.

But, of course, people who would not be ABLE to pass such tests would oppose them. Responsible and knowledgeable gun owners would have not problem...

Why would I need to pass MORE?
According to you, getting a firearm license would be “ like getting a drivers license”.!
Did you forget what you said already?

And you described that as “waiting at the dmv for 15 minutes for an eye test and checking your record”

So great, your suggestion is that a gun license will require passing an eye test and a background check ( all of 15 minutes) and then you will be able to conceal carry your firearm in every state in the US. ( like your drivers license allows you to drive in every state).

Or did you LIE when you said getting a gun license would be no more difficult than getting a drivers license?


Which is it?

 

[Feynman Lives!]

We were talking about your drivers license, remember?

I don't know what you're talking about. This thread is about guns. Specifically assault weapons. Read the OP!

I'm willing to briefly address any off-topic comment that you might have. But I won't participate in your efforts to derail the thread in an attempt to hide the fact that you have NOTHING to rebut the OP

This thread is NOT about a machine designed to transport you. It's a bout a machine designed to KILL you. The differences between the two are insurmountable.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

No, we don't.

Oops! Looks like you "accidently" told the truth. Now you need to find some way to walk it back. Problem is that what you said is there for all posterity. Better be more careful next time.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Spam

well both can exist

a Right to own guns
a Right to not be killed


in fact many people use guns to STOP from being killed .... how ironic huh ?

NRA-ILA | Armed Citizen®

Collection of armed citizens exercising their right to self-defense.

www.nraila.org

 

[Feynman Lives!]

You’d be better off going back to 6th grade and paying attention in civics

Courts can’t pass legislation or resolutions. They have no mechanism to do so.

So looks like you never heard of judges legislating from the bench. You have never heard of "judicial activism". Not surprised that MAGAs are unaware of things that the rest of us have always known. However, I prefer to debate with people who have at least a basic understanding of how the REAL world works so.... good luck! Over and out!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Actually if you pose a threat to yourself or others the judge can remand you to an inpatient treatment facility.

But in many states they can't order your guns removed when that would be enough to ameliorate the immediate problem.

Isn't it amazing!

There is no "treatment" for the impact of a sudden traumatic experience that could lead somebody to do things in the heat of the moment that they would normally not do otherwise. This is why some states have red flag laws. We just need them in ALL the states.

Your drivers license and whatever else is moot.

Completely agree. I was just responding to a passing comment by a poster.

Cripes if you are danger to yourself or othersTHERE IS NO WAY YOU SHOULD BE IN THE COMMUNITY..

And yet, you ARE. But that's not the worst part. The worst is that you are in the community AND you have a gun. Because in some states, judges are not even allowed to take your guns away from you briefly until the trauma of the moment passes.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Why would I need to pass MORE?
According to you, getting a firearm license would be “ like getting a drivers license”.!

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. So hard that only responsible gun owners who are proficient in their use and in their sound mental abilities can buy one.

Apparently this scares some folks here. Only reason I can imagine why is that THEY would not be able to meet this requirement. So they make excuses like equating it to "having to wait 2 hours in line at the DMV"... A comment that many have been trying to use to hide the fact that they have no arguments to rebut ANY of the points in the OP.

How about you? Do YOU think you could meet the requirements?

And you described that as “waiting at the dmv for 15 minutes for an eye test and checking your record”

If you understand that that is NOT the topic of the thread, then you already know that's a side comment directed to one specific poster who made a comment about the DMV. If you are trying to DERAIL the thread, than that is what you will focus on. Which is it? I'm pretty sure we'll know in your next post.

 

[rahl]

So looks like you never heard of judges legislating from the bench.

Because they can’t. There’s no mechanism to do so.

You have never heard of "judicial activism". Not surprised that MAGAs are unaware of things that the rest of us have always known. However, I prefer to debate with people who have at least a basic understanding of how the REAL world works so.... good luck! Over and out!

I’m sorry you failed 6th grade civics.

 

[RF667799]

I don't know what you're talking about. This thread is about guns. Specifically assault weapons. Read the OP!

I'm willing to briefly address any off-topic comment that you might have. But I won't participate in your efforts to derail the thread in an attempt to hide the fact that you have NOTHING to rebut the OP

This thread is NOT about a machine designed to transport you. It's a bout a machine designed to KILL you. The differences between the two are insurmountable.

What an imagination.

 

[RF667799]

Oops! Looks like you "accidently" told the truth. Now you need to find some way to walk it back. Problem is that what you said is there for all posterity. Better be more careful next time.

Oops! Looks like you aren't supporting your claim again.

Also, oops. You edited my post again, to avoid the parts that were difficult to lie about.