A required amendment for any gun control bill

[Crackerjaxon]

Too easy to get around: all the police chief would need to do is declare that cops are ALWAYS "on duty"and MUST carry their service weapon.

That would cost them a pretty penny, to pay them 24/7. They could try to salary them but I doubt the police unions would like it.

Please realize that I dont want gun control like the NY/Colorado/Conn Crap to pass. If it does however, I dont want to create a new class of "knights" the armed upper class that gets rights the rest of us do not have, and gets to lord over us like we are some medival serfs.

Most cops I know keep their service weapons handy.

Okay, let's get real here. The two reasons why you gun whacks give for wanting guns are pretty silly.

The first is you need to protect yourself from hoardes of criminals- but...

1. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.
2. The FBI only recorded 201 justified homicides with a gun out of 10,000 recorded that year.
3. 80% of murder victims know their killers.

Guns in the home do not make you safer.

The other logic you give is that you are sooooo paranoid the government is going to kill you. Again, the government will always have bigger guns, better guns, and be better with them. And frankly, if it comes to a shootout between a gun nut and a cop, the sympathy is always going to be with the cop.

You're such a nice boy. I bet your mother is proud of you.

 

[JoeB131]

[

We oppose liscensing because we know people like you want to end private ownership of guns. And yes you are afraid of those guys getting guns, but your solution of banning everyone except the government from having guns is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.



My interpretation of the 2nd is what you should do for ANY right, err on the side of caution that protects the right. Facists such as yourself don't agree with that, and I'm not surprised.

Done sucking government dick?

Uh, no, a right should be "Is there a good reason for that."

There's no good reason for most civilians to own firearms. They don't need them.

And certainly CRAZY FUCKS like Lanza shouldn't have guns.

Except that the gun industry sees Lanza as a prime market.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how licensing something is banning it.

I currently have a license to drive my car, I have a license to own my cat, I have a license to fish in Wisconsin, and guess what, no one is trying to take those things away from me.

So I'm just not seeing how making you get a license to own your gun, AFTER we've determined you are neither a criminal nor a crazy person, is taking a "right" away from you.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

If my fellow Citizens are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, yes, I am afraid of those guys getting guns, because they are batshit crazy.

And yes, I think people who oppose background checks and licensing to stop these guys from getting guns because they don't like the govenrment when they lose elections are kind of scary, too.

Since psychology is a pseudo-science, the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists should not be used to deprive people of their rights. It's oppressive and stupid.

I'm sorry that guns give you the fantods, but that's no reason for you to run about dodging the falling sky. Your fears are your business, not mine.

Have you heard of the mental condition called hoplophobia? It is evident that you suffer from it, and since you believe the opinions of mental health professionals should carry the force of law, you should seek treatment immediately.

After all, it isn't fair to sane people to have you gadding about trying to impinge on their liberty because you suffer from a mental disorfer.

 

[martybegan]

[

We oppose liscensing because we know people like you want to end private ownership of guns. And yes you are afraid of those guys getting guns, but your solution of banning everyone except the government from having guns is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.



My interpretation of the 2nd is what you should do for ANY right, err on the side of caution that protects the right. Facists such as yourself don't agree with that, and I'm not surprised.

Done sucking government dick?

Uh, no, a right should be "Is there a good reason for that."

There's no good reason for most civilians to own firearms. They don't need them.

And certainly CRAZY FUCKS like Lanza shouldn't have guns.

Except that the gun industry sees Lanza as a prime market.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how licensing something is banning it.

I currently have a license to drive my car, I have a license to own my cat, I have a license to fish in Wisconsin, and guess what, no one is trying to take those things away from me.

So I'm just not seeing how making you get a license to own your gun, AFTER we've determined you are neither a criminal nor a crazy person, is taking a "right" away from you.

Because you Say " there is no good reason for most civilians to own firearms" Thus you ARE a fucking gun grabber, and I dont trust you on ANYTHING regarding gun issues.

Its like asking PETA for recipies for standing rib roast.

FOAD.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

[

We oppose liscensing because we know people like you want to end private ownership of guns. And yes you are afraid of those guys getting guns, but your solution of banning everyone except the government from having guns is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.



My interpretation of the 2nd is what you should do for ANY right, err on the side of caution that protects the right. Facists such as yourself don't agree with that, and I'm not surprised.

Done sucking government dick?

Uh, no, a right should be "Is there a good reason for that."

There's no good reason for most civilians to own firearms. They don't need them.

And certainly CRAZY FUCKS like Lanza shouldn't have guns.

Except that the gun industry sees Lanza as a prime market.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how licensing something is banning it.

I currently have a license to drive my car, I have a license to own my cat, I have a license to fish in Wisconsin, and guess what, no one is trying to take those things away from me.

So I'm just not seeing how making you get a license to own your gun, AFTER we've determined you are neither a criminal nor a crazy person, is taking a "right" away from you.

Fortunately, people don't have to have their rights cleared through you. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I need without your input, thank you.

 

[JoeB131]

If my fellow Citizens are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, yes, I am afraid of those guys getting guns, because they are batshit crazy.

And yes, I think people who oppose background checks and licensing to stop these guys from getting guns because they don't like the govenrment when they lose elections are kind of scary, too.

Since psychology is a pseudo-science, the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists should not be used to deprive people of their rights. It's oppressive and stupid.

I'm sorry that guns give you the fantods, but that's no reason for you to run about dodging the falling sky. Your fears are your business, not mine.

Have you heard of the mental condition called hoplophobia? It is evident that you suffer from it, and since you believe the opinions of mental health professionals should carry the force of law, you should seek treatment immediately.

After all, it isn't fair to sane people to have you gadding about trying to impinge on their liberty because you suffer from a mental disorfer.

Guy, I have neices the ages of the children Lanza slaughtered.

It's not an unreasonable position that people like him have to be prevented from getting guns.

And if you guys can't police yourselves, everyone out of the pool, because there's no compelling reason for you to have a gun to start with.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Fortunately, people don't have to have their rights cleared through you. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I need without your input, thank you.

Gun Control is coming. Learn to deal. The rest of us are sick of living in a shooting zone because you guys are compensating for your "shortcomings".

 

[JoeB131]

[

We oppose liscensing because we know people like you want to end private ownership of guns. And yes you are afraid of those guys getting guns, but your solution of banning everyone except the government from having guns is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.



My interpretation of the 2nd is what you should do for ANY right, err on the side of caution that protects the right. Facists such as yourself don't agree with that, and I'm not surprised.

Done sucking government dick?

Uh, no, a right should be "Is there a good reason for that."

There's no good reason for most civilians to own firearms. They don't need them.

And certainly CRAZY FUCKS like Lanza shouldn't have guns.

Except that the gun industry sees Lanza as a prime market.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how licensing something is banning it.

I currently have a license to drive my car, I have a license to own my cat, I have a license to fish in Wisconsin, and guess what, no one is trying to take those things away from me.

So I'm just not seeing how making you get a license to own your gun, AFTER we've determined you are neither a criminal nor a crazy person, is taking a "right" away from you.

Because you Say " there is no good reason for most civilians to own firearms" Thus you ARE a fucking gun grabber, and I dont trust you on ANYTHING regarding gun issues.

Its like asking PETA for recipies for standing rib roast.

FOAD.

Not really. Didn't say you couldn't have a gun. Said there was no good reason. But if you WANT a gun, that's fine.

After I am reasonably sure that you 1) aren't a crazy person or criminal, 2) are properly licensed, trained and insured so your own negligence doesn't become a danger to the rest of us.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

There are ONLY rights for individuals. There is not, nor has there ever been, a collective right.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

[


Fortunately, people don't have to have their rights cleared through you. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I need without your input, thank you.

Gun Control is coming. Learn to deal. The rest of us are sick of living in a shooting zone because you guys are compensating for your "shortcomings".

No, it isn't. I know that dems are scrambling to sell the "universal background check" scam to the public, but they ain't gonna buy.

I doubt it will get through the senate. There's no way in hell it gets through the house.

Back up and punt, dude. Today ain't your day.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

If my fellow Citizens are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, yes, I am afraid of those guys getting guns, because they are batshit crazy.

And yes, I think people who oppose background checks and licensing to stop these guys from getting guns because they don't like the govenrment when they lose elections are kind of scary, too.

Since psychology is a pseudo-science, the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists should not be used to deprive people of their rights. It's oppressive and stupid.

I'm sorry that guns give you the fantods, but that's no reason for you to run about dodging the falling sky. Your fears are your business, not mine.

Have you heard of the mental condition called hoplophobia? It is evident that you suffer from it, and since you believe the opinions of mental health professionals should carry the force of law, you should seek treatment immediately.

After all, it isn't fair to sane people to have you gadding about trying to impinge on their liberty because you suffer from a mental disorfer.

Guy, I have neices the ages of the children Lanza slaughtered.

It's not an unreasonable position that people like him have to be prevented from getting guns.

And if you guys can't police yourselves, everyone out of the pool, because there's no compelling reason for you to have a gun to start with.

It is an unreasonable position because we are ALL people just like him. Impinging on the rights of individuals for things they might do is totalitarian and evil.

Individuals have the right to bear arms. If that bothers you, repeal the 2nd Amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Uh, no, a right should be "Is there a good reason for that."

There's no good reason for most civilians to own firearms. They don't need them.

And certainly CRAZY FUCKS like Lanza shouldn't have guns.

Except that the gun industry sees Lanza as a prime market.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how licensing something is banning it.

I currently have a license to drive my car, I have a license to own my cat, I have a license to fish in Wisconsin, and guess what, no one is trying to take those things away from me.

So I'm just not seeing how making you get a license to own your gun, AFTER we've determined you are neither a criminal nor a crazy person, is taking a "right" away from you.

Because you Say " there is no good reason for most civilians to own firearms" Thus you ARE a fucking gun grabber, and I dont trust you on ANYTHING regarding gun issues.

Its like asking PETA for recipies for standing rib roast.

FOAD.

Not really. Didn't say you couldn't have a gun. Said there was no good reason. But if you WANT a gun, that's fine.

After I am reasonably sure that you 1) aren't a crazy person or criminal, 2) are properly licensed, trained and insured so your own negligence doesn't become a danger to the rest of us.

Where does the 2nd amendment say I have to be properly liscensed, trained and insured?

Do you have to do the same thing to exercise your 1st amendment rights?

And it doesnt matter what you say, we all know you are a grabber.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

[

1) Than number has been debunked countless times, stop using it.
2) not counting the times people used a gun to defend themselves WITHOUT killing someone, or even the deterrence value an armed populace has.
3) Not related to legal gun owners. The crackhead knows his crack dealer, when one or the other shoots the other one, how is that related to legal gun ownership?

Why do you enjoy the idea of a ruling class that has more rights than you do? Do you feel the need to be a sheep, mewling for whatever handout your "betters" are willing to give you?

Gee, maybe because I want the guy who has to go into a building full of criminals to be armed, trained and screened before we give him a gun.

Some whack who thinks he's a comic book supervillian, no, I don't want him to have a gun and I don't want people who are arming like the Zombie Apocolypse is coming to have them, either.

You don't need a gun.

Oh, Kellerman has never been debunked. Gun Whacks stomping their feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" is not debunking. It's a tantrum.

Its a study in a single county in the pacific midwest. We have been over this, you lost, and your refuse to admit it.

If a gun that is allowed to other civillians is perfectly capable of protecting them, then the same should be for police. They have NO rights greater than my rights.

You have NO say with regards for my need for a gun. you have no NEED to post on this board and exercise your first amendment rights, but I have no RIGHT to stop you, just as you have no RIGHT and government has no RIGHT to say what arms I can and cannot own that other civillians, including police can own.

Baa like the sheep you are.

When you boil it down, the end result, even though they say they're not taking your guns, is "You don't need a gun". They simply do not care for the constitution.

 

[hunarcy]

Because you Say " there is no good reason for most civilians to own firearms" Thus you ARE a fucking gun grabber, and I dont trust you on ANYTHING regarding gun issues.

I have no idea why you would require that admission to not trust him. He bases his argument on his emotions and a discredited 20 year old study by Kellerman.

Dave Kopel on NRO

He's a joke.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If my fellow Citizens are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, yes, I am afraid of those guys getting guns, because they are batshit crazy.

And yes, I think people who oppose background checks and licensing to stop these guys from getting guns because they don't like the govenrment when they lose elections are kind of scary, too.

Since psychology is a pseudo-science, the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists should not be used to deprive people of their rights. It's oppressive and stupid.

I'm sorry that guns give you the fantods, but that's no reason for you to run about dodging the falling sky. Your fears are your business, not mine.

Have you heard of the mental condition called hoplophobia? It is evident that you suffer from it, and since you believe the opinions of mental health professionals should carry the force of law, you should seek treatment immediately.

After all, it isn't fair to sane people to have you gadding about trying to impinge on their liberty because you suffer from a mental disorfer.

Guy, I have neices the ages of the children Lanza slaughtered.

It's not an unreasonable position that people like him have to be prevented from getting guns.

And if you guys can't police yourselves, everyone out of the pool, because there's no compelling reason for you to have a gun to start with.

He killed his mother and took her guns. No one sold or gave him a gun.

Are you this stupid in person?

No gun laws would have prevented what happened in Newport.

 

[editec]

Since psychology is a pseudo-science, the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists should not be used to deprive people of their rights. It's oppressive and stupid.

I'm sorry that guns give you the fantods, but that's no reason for you to run about dodging the falling sky. Your fears are your business, not mine.

Have you heard of the mental condition called hoplophobia? It is evident that you suffer from it, and since you believe the opinions of mental health professionals should carry the force of law, you should seek treatment immediately.

After all, it isn't fair to sane people to have you gadding about trying to impinge on their liberty because you suffer from a mental disorfer.

Guy, I have neices the ages of the children Lanza slaughtered.

It's not an unreasonable position that people like him have to be prevented from getting guns.

And if you guys can't police yourselves, everyone out of the pool, because there's no compelling reason for you to have a gun to start with.

It is an unreasonable position because we are ALL people just like him. Impinging on the rights of individuals for things they might do is totalitarian and evil.

Individuals have the right to bear arms. If that bothers you, repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Don't you understand that the government already has a workaround to negate that right?

They actually have at least TWO ways to limit guns in the hands of the citizen:

1. Taxation of guns and ammo

2. Making gun ownership subject to FORCED INSURANCE.

What they can (will?) do is make it virtually impossible for middle class and lower to own guns legally because the people cannot afford them.

Sadly I doubt that will have much effect on crime by gun, or on spree killers, either.

But it certainly have the effect of disarming many citizens who are neither criminals or spree killers.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:

1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.

2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.

3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.

4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.

5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.

Too easy to get around: all the police chief would need to do is declare that cops are ALWAYS "on duty"and MUST carry their service weapon.

That would cost them a pretty penny, to pay them 24/7. They could try to salary them but I doubt the police unions would like it.

Please realize that I dont want gun control like the NY/Colorado/Conn Crap to pass. If it does however, I dont want to create a new class of "knights" the armed upper class that gets rights the rest of us do not have, and gets to lord over us like we are some medival serfs.

The unions would be 100% behind them...you think THEY want to be disarmed?!?! They could work the language out.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

The milita is only in affect when the state calls it, and that is to be "well regulated." The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms has no such qualifier, and is indeed "not to be infringed."

That happens to be one way of reading it.

It wasn't the way it was read for most of history and even the insanity that is Heller doesn't make it an absolute right.



A 50 cal can be operated by a single person. I've done it. So can an M-60.

Its amazing how afraid you are of your fellow citizens, and how ready you are to suck the dick of your governmental betters.

If my fellow Citizens are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, yes, I am afraid of those guys getting guns, because they are batshit crazy.

And yes, I think people who oppose background checks and licensing to stop these guys from getting guns because they don't like the govenrment when they lose elections are kind of scary, too.

We oppose liscensing because we know people like you want to end private ownership of guns. And yes you are afraid of those guys getting guns, but your solution of banning everyone except the government from having guns is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.

A 0.50 cal can be owned actually, just you need a federal liscense and permission of local law enforcement.

No issue with that, as it is a derivative of the gatling gun, which was a crew serviced weapon. Just because it can be operated by one person does not make it an "arm" One person can load and fire the 16" gun on a battleship, it would just take them a long time.

My interpretation of the 2nd is what you should do for ANY right, err on the side of caution that protects the right. Facists such as yourself don't agree with that, and I'm not surprised.

Done sucking government dick?

Actually...according to F-troop, a crank-operated Gatling is NOT a machine gun! Far as they care, it is, legally, no different from any other semiautomatic rifle! (In fact, there are even Gatlings that use cheap .22 ammo.)

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Guy, I have neices the ages of the children Lanza slaughtered.

It's not an unreasonable position that people like him have to be prevented from getting guns.

And if you guys can't police yourselves, everyone out of the pool, because there's no compelling reason for you to have a gun to start with.

It is an unreasonable position because we are ALL people just like him. Impinging on the rights of individuals for things they might do is totalitarian and evil.

Individuals have the right to bear arms. If that bothers you, repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Don't you understand that the government already has a workaround to negate that right?

They actually have at least TWO ways to limit guns in the hands of the citizen:

1. Taxation of guns and ammo

2. Making gun ownership subject to FORCED INSURANCE.

What they can (will?) do is make it virtually impossible for middle class and lower to own guns legally because the people cannot afford them.

Sadly I doubt that will have much effect on crime by gun, or on spree killers, either.

But it certainly have the effect of disarming many citizens who are neither criminals or spree killers.

What part of "shall not be infringed" gives you trouble?

Is it the two-syllable word?

 

[JoeB131]

[


Fortunately, people don't have to have their rights cleared through you. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I need without your input, thank you.

Gun Control is coming. Learn to deal. The rest of us are sick of living in a shooting zone because you guys are compensating for your "shortcomings".

No, it isn't. I know that dems are scrambling to sell the "universal background check" scam to the public, but they ain't gonna buy.

I doubt it will get through the senate. There's no way in hell it gets through the house.

Back up and punt, dude. Today ain't your day.

Again, guy, there will always be another incident of a crazy person who got a gun who shouldn't have... and your arguments will be even weaker to sane people than they are now.