"common Sense Gun Laws"

[Asclepias]

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

True -- people with an irrational fear of guns may very well think that.

People that have that many guns usually are irrational and fearfully paranoid.

Prove this to be true, rather than a product of your ignorance and bigotry.

What form of proof are you looking for?

Something substantive that does not involve opinion, especially yours.

Sure but I need to see something substantive that says its not true other than your opinon or anyone elses opinion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Common sense is to require ID when purchasing a firearm to prove the buyer is over 18 years of age and not on the national instant check restricted list.

That's about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't understand what restrictions mean so I guess we are even. In a free country we do restrict rights based on fears of what someone would do.Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or shout fire in a crowded public place.

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

True -- people with an irrational fear of guns may very well think that.

People that have that many guns usually are irrational and fearfully paranoid.

Prove this to be true, rather than a product of your ignorance and bigotry.

What form of proof are you looking for?

Something substantive that does not involve opinion, especially yours.

Sure but I need to see something substantive that says its not true other than your opinon or anyone elses opinion.

I laugh at you.
You made a claim you know you cannot support, and then say you will stand by that claim until it is proven untrue.
I laugh at you again.

 

[Asclepias]

You don't understand what restrictions mean so I guess we are even. In a free country we do restrict rights based on fears of what someone would do.Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or shout fire in a crowded public place.

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement. Whats the difference between having a shotgun in your basement and a nuclear warhead?

 

[Asclepias]

People that have that many guns usually are irrational and fearfully paranoid.

Prove this to be true, rather than a product of your ignorance and bigotry.

What form of proof are you looking for?

Something substantive that does not involve opinion, especially yours.

Sure but I need to see something substantive that says its not true other than your opinon or anyone elses opinion.

I laugh at you.
You made a claim you know you cannot support, and then say you will stand by that claim until it is proven untrue.
I laugh at you again.

I laugh at you too. You ask for proof but restrict it but when I do the same you cant provide your proof.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't understand what restrictions mean so I guess we are even. In a free country we do restrict rights based on fears of what someone would do.Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or shout fire in a crowded public place.

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement.

Show how the mere presence of guns in my basement places you in the same degree of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Moron, registration is not incompatible with the 2nd amendment if it is implemented intelligently.

As I stated, guns should not be registered as if one is applying for permission to own them, but as an informative tool so the government knows "Citizen X has "N" number of guns with these serial numbers".

Sort of like registering speech doesn't need to be done to have the state decide who can speak, but just so the government knows that "Citizen X said Y against government official Z," right?

The reason why is because knowing who owns those guns will make it easier to punish the violent offenders that break into Citizen X's cache and raids their stash. It also gives police a lead on where a stolen gun originated.

The reason why is that it will be easier to punish those who engage in homophobia or other speech that is prohibited by our rulers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Prove this to be true, rather than a product of your ignorance and bigotry.

What form of proof are you looking for?

Something substantive that does not involve opinion, especially yours.

Sure but I need to see something substantive that says its not true other than your opinon or anyone elses opinion.

I laugh at you.
You made a claim you know you cannot support, and then say you will stand by that claim until it is proven untrue.
I laugh at you again.

I laugh at you too. You ask for proof but restrict it but when I do the same you cant provide your proof.

Its your claim.
As you know clearly you cannot substantively support it, it remains meaningless as support for your position.

 

[RKMBrown]

You don't understand what restrictions mean so I guess we are even. In a free country we do restrict rights based on fears of what someone would do.Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or shout fire in a crowded public place.

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement. Whats the difference between having a shotgun in your basement and a nuclear warhead?

A shotgun is light arms, nuclear warhead is heavy ordinance.

 

[Asclepias]

You don't understand what restrictions mean so I guess we are even. In a free country we do restrict rights based on fears of what someone would do.Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or shout fire in a crowded public place.

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement.

Show how the mere presence of guns in my basement places you in the same degree of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater.

Sure. Show how does the mere presence of a nuclear warhead in my basement differ from a shotgun in my basement.

 

[Asclepias]

You don't understand what restrictions mean so I guess we are even. In a free country we do restrict rights based on fears of what someone would do.Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or shout fire in a crowded public place.

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement. Whats the difference between having a shotgun in your basement and a nuclear warhead?

A shotgun is light arms, nuclear warhead is heavy ordinance.

So why is one restricted and the other is not?

 

[Asclepias]

What form of proof are you looking for?

Something substantive that does not involve opinion, especially yours.

Sure but I need to see something substantive that says its not true other than your opinon or anyone elses opinion.

I laugh at you.
You made a claim you know you cannot support, and then say you will stand by that claim until it is proven untrue.
I laugh at you again.

I laugh at you too. You ask for proof but restrict it but when I do the same you cant provide your proof.

Its your claim.
As you know clearly you cannot substantively support it, it remains meaningless as support for your position.

I dont need to support it. You cant support yours.

 

[RKMBrown]

You don't understand what restrictions mean so I guess we are even. In a free country we do restrict rights based on fears of what someone would do.Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or shout fire in a crowded public place.

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement. Whats the difference between having a shotgun in your basement and a nuclear warhead?

A shotgun is light arms, nuclear warhead is heavy ordinance.

So why is one restricted and the other is not?

Because heavy ordinance is not protected from restriction by the federal government, as arms is. Our government, rightly or wrongly, decided to restrict things like nuclear weapons for personal use. A more detailed explanation would require us talk about what arms is... Traditionally it was supposed to cover the type of stuff carried by a foot soldier. I think the feds are off when it comes to select fire m16, as that gun is the standard. We should be able to have an aK or an m16.. sry but that's the way it should be based on the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't understand what restrictions mean so I guess we are even. In a free country we do restrict rights based on fears of what someone would do.Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or shout fire in a crowded public place.

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement.

Show how the mere presence of guns in my basement places you in the same degree of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater.

Sure. Show how does the mere presence of a nuclear warhead in my basement is different from a shotgun in my basement.

I see you understand that you cannot show how how the mere presence of guns in my basement places you in the same degree of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater.
Now all you have to do is admit it to yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Something substantive that does not involve opinion, especially yours.

Sure but I need to see something substantive that says its not true other than your opinon or anyone elses opinion.

I laugh at you.
You made a claim you know you cannot support, and then say you will stand by that claim until it is proven untrue.
I laugh at you again.

I laugh at you too. You ask for proof but restrict it but when I do the same you cant provide your proof.

Its your claim.
As you know clearly you cannot substantively support it, it remains meaningless as support for your position.

I dont need to support it.

You do it you want if to have any relevance to the conversation.

 

[Asclepias]

You don't understand what restrictions mean so I guess we are even. In a free country we do restrict rights based on fears of what someone would do.Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or shout fire in a crowded public place.

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement. Whats the difference between having a shotgun in your basement and a nuclear warhead?

A shotgun is light arms, nuclear warhead is heavy ordinance.

So why is one restricted and the other is not?

Because heavy ordinance is not protected from restriction by the federal government, as arms is. Our government, rightly or wrongly, decided to restrict things like nuclear weapons for personal use. A more detailed explanation would require us talk about what arms is... but basically it is the type of stuff carried by a foot soldier.

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement. Whats the difference between having a shotgun in your basement and a nuclear warhead?

Words have meanings, Asslips - which is why Ebonics is nothing other than ignorance.

"Arms" has a specific meaning, weapons which can be carried and operated by a single soldier. A nuclear warhead doesn't meet that criterion.

Does that answer what you axed?

 

[Asclepias]

You don't understand what restrictions mean so I guess we are even. In a free country we do restrict rights based on fears of what someone would do.Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or shout fire in a crowded public place.

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement.

Show how the mere presence of guns in my basement places you in the same degree of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater.

Sure. Show how does the mere presence of a nuclear warhead in my basement is different from a shotgun in my basement.

I see you understand that you cannot show how how the mere presence of guns in my basement places you in the same degree of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater.
Now all you have to do is admit it to yourself.

I see you are avoiding my question.

 

[Asclepias]

Sure but I need to see something substantive that says its not true other than your opinon or anyone elses opinion.

I laugh at you.
You made a claim you know you cannot support, and then say you will stand by that claim until it is proven untrue.
I laugh at you again.

I laugh at you too. You ask for proof but restrict it but when I do the same you cant provide your proof.

Its your claim.
As you know clearly you cannot substantively support it, it remains meaningless as support for your position.

I dont need to support it.

You do it you want if to have any relevance to the conversation.

Then I see you understand your question is not relevant then. if you cant support your contention why would I waste time supporting mine?