Big Gun Reform Idea From 2020 Democrats

[JoeB131]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

We already have that in IL.... the nuts still own lots of guns.

Do you have any better arguments of why we need all these guns other than, "The Founding Slave Rapists couldn't write a Militia Amendment clearly"?

 

[JoeB131]

No, that is ridiculous.

I do have a permit, but even with one, I am not allowed to take my gun into a hospital or government building. I'm not allowed to take my weapon in gun-free zones which any place of business can be if they put up a sign.

And reading your posts, people in hospitals and government buildings are grateful.

Here's the thing. WHY do all those businesses put up those signs? Because they are caving to the government? Nope. Most of them put up those signs because they don't want the liability of a trigger happy nut shooting up the place in an argument over who got the last donut.

 

[Blues Man]

[Q


Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

My god you Moon Bats are absolutely morons. Then you idiots wonder why we ridicule you so much.

You are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you are ignorant of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.

OK, so educate me. Show me where in the constitution the right to bear arms is any more important or protected than the right to vote. One right wing idiot even said the right to vote wasn't even in there,

Our entire form of government is predicated on the idea that the government does not and cannot grant rights but rather all rights reside within the individual and thus cannot be given nor taken away by anyone

 

[iceberg]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

I would make this offer to the Democrats: We will go along with your bill, but you have to sign a contract with America. Win, lose or draw, you will never bring up any new gun laws or complaints after this.

Democrats just want to use this new law as a stepping stone for ultimately a total disarmament of all citizens. If they knew this bill would be the last thing they could do with guns and never reach their goal, they will vote it down in a heartbeat.

THIS is my issue. i never see anti-gun people learn and go "oh, i didn't know that, maybe i am wrong" - every single time i try to have them tell me exactly the differences in an AR15 and a ruger 10/22 i first get THE LOOKS. but you can get a 10/22 that looks like an AR. do we outlaw "the look" now? then it's high capacity mags. well great, high capacity mags are more prone to sticking and even so, again, the 10/22 can get one also.

they struggle very hard to find an actual difference in use from a 10/22 to an AR15 and EVERY SINGLE TIME what i get back is "well then semi-automatic guns just need to go".

so they're not trying to resolve an issue or they'd equate a move with physical proof it would have stopped a past mass shooting. but none of their ideas or suggestions would have done that. putting more info in the background checks WOULD have stopped 2-3 I know of. but you say this and they go off to numbers of "well it will help stop someone!" as if that's a good justification. a wish and a hope their actions would create the differences they are looking for.

even if they agreed to this (and they never would) the very next shooting they'd be back at the table getting all emotional again as if that will help.

 

[Flash]

[

Our entire form of government is predicated on the idea that the government does not and cannot grant rights but rather all rights reside within the individual and thus cannot be given nor taken away by anyone

These Moon Bats like Bulldog don't understand that.

They are as ignorant of the Constitution as they are of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.

 

[BULLDOG]

Many states issue gun licenses that require all those things now. If it wasn't constitutional, do you think the gun nuts wouldn't have brought a case to stop it?

No, states require gun licenses to carry a gun in public, not to own one. In other words it's optional and not a requirement. If you want a CCW, you have to do those things. If you don't want to do those things, then you can keep your gun in your home.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

It's constitutional because you can still bear arms without carrying a gun. What's being discussed here is whether those same requirements can be instituted simply to own a gun.

The right to keep arms and to bear arms are linked. They are one and the same. If it is constitutional to require permits to bear them, it's constitutional to require permits to keep them.

So, what do we get in exchange for changing the right into a privilege, issuing a license, and charging a fee? ANYTHING?

If I am licensed to drive a huge, dangerous 18-wheel truck, should I be prevented from driving it, just because you're scared?

What restrictions will be relaxed in exchange for this licensing? Should it open the door for any and all types of weapons. I mean, we would be licensed, right?

And, you answers to these questions demonstrates your real intent. So, go on.

.

No need to relax or GIVE anything. It's legal to do. As always, you are still free to whine all you want if your unearned privileges aren't as all encompassing as they once were.

 

[Rustic]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

We already have that in IL.... the nuts still own lots of guns.

Do you have any better arguments of why we need all these guns other than, "The Founding Slave Rapists couldn't write a Militia Amendment clearly"?

lol
The original slave owners on this continent were my Ancestors, American Indians you silly little fucker.

It’s the second amendment live with it you little bedwetter.

 

[Rustic]

Progressives just don’t understand firearms and the culture of firearms… They’re too scared to understand there are people different than them.

 

[BULLDOG]

Progressives just don’t understand firearms and the culture of firearms… They’re too scared to understand there are people different than them.

You still think all gun owners are gun nuts. We aren't.

 

[Rustic]

Progressives just don’t understand firearms and the culture of firearms… They’re too scared to understand there are people different than them.

You still think all gun owners are gun nuts. We aren't.

lol
There are probably over 400 million legally held firearms in this country… That presents no danger to anybody. What is the percentage up danger from those firearms?

There’s a reason why cars, bathtubs, swimming pools, lawnmowers, lightning, etc are far more dangerous…

Gun-control has never been about guns… It has always been about control

 

[Rustic]

America needs a month or two, to cool down on the gun control thing. Nothing good can come from spontaneous frivolous gun control laws

 

[Polishprince]

Leftists will swing from every tree before that shit happens.

I think the vast majority of people will just do a work-around if this was enacted and buy their weapons from independent dealers operating out of the trunks of their cars or the backrooms of cocktail lounges. Guys that don't require special licenses- or background checks- for that matter.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, that is ridiculous.

I do have a permit, but even with one, I am not allowed to take my gun into a hospital or government building. I'm not allowed to take my weapon in gun-free zones which any place of business can be if they put up a sign.

And reading your posts, people in hospitals and government buildings are grateful.

Here's the thing. WHY do all those businesses put up those signs? Because they are caving to the government? Nope. Most of them put up those signs because they don't want the liability of a trigger happy nut shooting up the place in an argument over who got the last donut.

In this country, there are less criminal offenses against CCW holders than police. CCW holders are the most law abiding people in the country. The real reason they fear guns is the liability issue. The Democrats have made it so you can sue anybody for anything. But then again, trial lawyers are one of their largest contributors come election time.

So I’m in a store and armed robbers come in. One puts all the customers and workers in the milk cooler while the other is out with the employee at the cash register or safe. As he looks away, I pull my gun from my back holster and kill the lowlife. The other guy runs out of the store empty handed.

The police come out and rule my actions as justified. Later, the family of the robber I killed files a wrongful death suit against me and the company that owns the store. They are less likely to get anything out of me, but the company would likely settle out of court to avoid the legal costs and publicity.

That’s the problem.

 

[martybegan]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

And the process will take 3-6 months, and cost hundreds of dollars.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.
Unconstitutional.
Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

And the process will take 3-6 months, and cost hundreds of dollars.

Imagine if the same conditions were laid on the right to an abortion.

 

[iceberg]

No, states require gun licenses to carry a gun in public, not to own one. In other words it's optional and not a requirement. If you want a CCW, you have to do those things. If you don't want to do those things, then you can keep your gun in your home.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

It's constitutional because you can still bear arms without carrying a gun. What's being discussed here is whether those same requirements can be instituted simply to own a gun.

The right to keep arms and to bear arms are linked. They are one and the same. If it is constitutional to require permits to bear them, it's constitutional to require permits to keep them.

So, what do we get in exchange for changing the right into a privilege, issuing a license, and charging a fee? ANYTHING?

If I am licensed to drive a huge, dangerous 18-wheel truck, should I be prevented from driving it, just because you're scared?

What restrictions will be relaxed in exchange for this licensing? Should it open the door for any and all types of weapons. I mean, we would be licensed, right?

And, you answers to these questions demonstrates your real intent. So, go on.

.

No need to relax or GIVE anything. It's legal to do. As always, you are still free to whine all you want if your unearned privileges aren't as all encompassing as they once were.

how do you know what privileges people have and/or how they came about them?

 

[martybegan]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.
Unconstitutional.
Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

And the process will take 3-6 months, and cost hundreds of dollars.

Imagine if the same conditions were laid on the right to an abortion.

Progressives would flip over 3-6 days, and $50 for a "card" to be allowed to have an abortion.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

It's constitutional because you can still bear arms without carrying a gun. What's being discussed here is whether those same requirements can be instituted simply to own a gun.

The right to keep arms and to bear arms are linked. They are one and the same. If it is constitutional to require permits to bear them, it's constitutional to require permits to keep them.

So, what do we get in exchange for changing the right into a privilege, issuing a license, and charging a fee? ANYTHING?

If I am licensed to drive a huge, dangerous 18-wheel truck, should I be prevented from driving it, just because you're scared?

What restrictions will be relaxed in exchange for this licensing? Should it open the door for any and all types of weapons. I mean, we would be licensed, right?

And, you answers to these questions demonstrates your real intent. So, go on.

.

No need to relax or GIVE anything. It's legal to do. As always, you are still free to whine all you want if your unearned privileges aren't as all encompassing as they once were.

how do you know what privileges people have and/or how they came about them?

I suppose I am as informed as anyone about lots of them. It's not like there is a big secret involved.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, states require gun licenses to carry a gun in public, not to own one. In other words it's optional and not a requirement. If you want a CCW, you have to do those things. If you don't want to do those things, then you can keep your gun in your home.

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

It's constitutional because you can still bear arms without carrying a gun. What's being discussed here is whether those same requirements can be instituted simply to own a gun.

The right to keep arms and to bear arms are linked. They are one and the same. If it is constitutional to require permits to bear them, it's constitutional to require permits to keep them.

So, what do we get in exchange for changing the right into a privilege, issuing a license, and charging a fee? ANYTHING?

If I am licensed to drive a huge, dangerous 18-wheel truck, should I be prevented from driving it, just because you're scared?

What restrictions will be relaxed in exchange for this licensing? Should it open the door for any and all types of weapons. I mean, we would be licensed, right?

And, you answers to these questions demonstrates your real intent. So, go on.

.

No need to relax or GIVE anything. It's legal to do. As always, you are still free to whine all you want if your unearned privileges aren't as all encompassing as they once were.

And THIS is the answer I expected.

It's all give and no take for gun owners.

This is why we will fight this all the way. We know there is not real interest in safety. It's all about controlling the subjects.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well make up your mind. Is it constitutional or not? All those things are required to bear arms, or have gun nuts given up on being armed 24/7?

It's constitutional because you can still bear arms without carrying a gun. What's being discussed here is whether those same requirements can be instituted simply to own a gun.

The right to keep arms and to bear arms are linked. They are one and the same. If it is constitutional to require permits to bear them, it's constitutional to require permits to keep them.

So, what do we get in exchange for changing the right into a privilege, issuing a license, and charging a fee? ANYTHING?

If I am licensed to drive a huge, dangerous 18-wheel truck, should I be prevented from driving it, just because you're scared?

What restrictions will be relaxed in exchange for this licensing? Should it open the door for any and all types of weapons. I mean, we would be licensed, right?

And, you answers to these questions demonstrates your real intent. So, go on.

.

No need to relax or GIVE anything. It's legal to do. As always, you are still free to whine all you want if your unearned privileges aren't as all encompassing as they once were.

And THIS is the answer I expected.

It's all give and no take for gun owners.

This is why we will fight this all the way. We know there is not real interest in safety. It's all about controlling the subjects.

.

What a dumb thing to say. There is no reason for an armed conflict with our government and military to start with. That's what elections are for, and even if there were a reason, your guns are a pathetic joke compared to what our military has. You're just enamored with the exciting stories you have heard about the old west. Those stories have nothing to do with the reality of today's world.