More wins for freedom (and losses for the anti-civil right gun control crowd)

[The Brad Dad]

Must really suck when all you have left is lies.

You tell me, when are rhe Epstein Files being released again?

 

[braindrain]

You tell me, when are rhe Epstein Files being released again?

Your desperate flashing is not going to cover for your obvious lying. No matter not butt hurt you get.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Your desperate flashing is not going to cover for your obvious lying. No matter not butt hurt you get.

"No matter not butt hurt you get". Okay.

 

[LouC]

Petty trolling.<snipped>

^^^^Self identifying.

 

[RF667799]

^^^^Self identifying.

You wanted to assess the benefits of guns by referral to a portion of people who had been killed by someone using a gun.

This is like making an assessment of the benefits of Ford electric trucks by narrowly noting that one was used to murderous effect in New Orleans.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Except for Guns none of those things you mentioned are Constitutionally Protected so they can be fully regulated in order to prevent those ever so rare Deaths,

Automobiles are not constitutionally protected, yet they are not fully regulated. If they were, we would not have almost 12,000 deaths a year due to speeding. Why hasn't the NTSB stepped in to prevent the ACCEPTABLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE done by people being able to pilot 500+ horsepower cars and trucks? Aren't those "relatively tiny" amount of deaths worth erasing? No automobile needs more than 200 horsepower!!!

 

[LouC]

Automobiles are not constitutionally protected, yet they are not fully regulated. <snipped>

Irrelevant.

But for the record automobiles are far more regulated than guns.

 

[RF667799]

Irrelevant.

But for the record automobiles are far more regulated than guns.

Let's start with the regulations concerning ownership and possession.

 

[LouC]

Let's start with the regulations concerning ownership and possession.

Lets not.

The ownership and or possession of an automobile by a citizen or non-citizen is irrelevant to this conversation,

 

[RF667799]

Lets not.

The ownership and or possession of an automobile by a citizen or non-citizen is irrelevant to this conversation,

You seem hesitant to defend the claim you made less than a half hour ago.

You may have known it was false when you made it. For the record.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Irrelevant.

But for the record automobiles are far more regulated than guns.

Prove it. Or just admit that you don’t know anything about what you speak of.

 

[RF667799]

Prove it. Or just admit that you don’t know anything about what you speak of.

As is often the case around here, it suddenly becomes irrelevant when a poster is asked to support it.

*Makes claim in course of debate*

Will your claim withstand examination?

*Says their claim is irrelevant*

 

[CLAX1911]

Irrelevant.

If collateral damage is irrelevant why are you using that as an argument?

But for the record automobiles are far more regulated than guns.

They're not regulated at all not even a little. Roadways are regulated you can have a thousand cars and not insure any of them and never have a driver's license and you're not breaking a single law.

 

[CLAX1911]

Lets not.

Because it's a detrimental to your arguments.

The ownership and or possession of an automobile by a citizen or non-citizen is irrelevant to this conversation,

We're talking about possession and ownership of firearm are we not why is collateral damage irrelevant only when it comes to something you have a justification for using?

Sounds like logical inconsistency.

 

[Diomedes]

CA has lost two important cases challenging the infringement on the RKBA.

One gun a month law struck down by the 9th circuit.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s “1-in-30” Gun Rationing Law

A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down California’s “1-in-30” gun rationing law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendme…

jonathanturley.org

CA must now issue carry permits to non residents. This is especially important since CA does not recognize any other states’ permits. No longer will our rights stop at the CA state line.

California’s refusal to issue non-residents concealed carry permits is unconstitutional, judge rules

California should allow non-residents to apply for concealed handgun licenses in the state, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

www.courthousenews.com

More wins for drug runners/dealers. Now they can get their weapons and stay inconspicuous.

 

[CLAX1911]

More wins for drug runners/dealers. Now they can get their weapons and stay inconspicuous.

Truck runners and dealers probably don't buy guns from licensed dealers.

 

[JMB1911A1]

More wins for drug runners/dealers. Now they can get their weapons and stay inconspicuous.

Since the federal prohibition on prohibited persons owning firearms is not affected by these court cases, why are you lying about their effect? Or are you just ignorant of firearms laws like the rest of the anti-civil right gun control proponents on this board?

 

[Diomedes]

Since the federal prohibition on prohibited persons owning firearms is not affected by these court cases, why are you lying about their effect? Or are you just ignorant of firearms laws like the rest of the anti-civil right gun control proponents on this board?

You understand that you're giving the drug lords cover by owning automatic weapons don't you? Because of people like you...they can own automatic weapons and not look suspicious.

 

[RF667799]

You understand that you're giving the drug lords cover by owning automatic weapons don't you? Because of people like you...they can own automatic weapons and not look suspicious.

Because of people who own Ford trucks, that murderer in New Orleans could possess one and not look suspicious.

 

[JMB1911A1]

You understand that you're giving the drug lords cover by owning automatic weapons don't you? Because of people like you...they can own automatic weapons and not look suspicious.

You do realize that:
1) Automatic weapons were not the subject of either of these two court cases.
2) Automatic weapons are not and have never been illegal.
3) Persons with criminal records are prohibited persons and are not allowed to own ANY firearms.
4) Drug lords don’t obey laws anyway and will get automatic weapons if they want them.

You really need to learn the current laws and current state of firearms regulation in the United States.

 

[Diomedes]

You do realize that:

4) Drug lords don’t obey laws anyway and will get automatic weapons if they want them.

You really need to learn the current laws and current state of firearms regulation in the United States.

Like you said...drug lords don't obey the law anyway. However, your possession of an automatic weapon gives them cover. Drug lords no longer stand out by possessing such a thing.

 

[braindrain]

Like you said...drug lords don't obey the law anyway. However, your possession of an automatic weapon gives them cover. Drug lords no longer stand out by possessing such a thing.

You think you can tell an automatic weapon just by looking at it as they walk by the street. lol. To funny.

And sorry but restricting people’s constitutional rights because a tiny percentage of Americans misuse those rights is complete bs.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Like you said...drug lords don't obey the law anyway. However, your possession of an automatic weapon gives them cover. Drug lords no longer stand out by possessing such a thing.

I see that you failed to address the rest of my points and dishonestly quoted me out of context.

Your surrender is accepted.

 

[Bum]

I see that you failed to address the rest of my points and dishonestly quoted me out of context.

Your surrender is accepted.

 

[RF667799]

Some of those claims and arguments seem so familiar.