Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[Q
The claim was made that universal checks would have no effect either way. I just asked for proof of that claim.
Like what?A mandatory year of military service would have several beneficial results, one of which would be fire arms training. One other, undoing some of the leftist indoctrination and giving them a crash course on how to be an adult instead of a perpetually offended little hyper sensitive democrat cry baby.Making someone get training is nowhere in the same ballpark as forcing them to devote a year of their lives in involuntary servitude that may result in their death in armed conflict, hyperbole or not.Awesome hyperbole.Well, that would require people to serve and die in bullshit regime-change wars against their will. Mandatory school training is much less intrusive.If we're going to make gun safety training mandatory, might was well just reenact the draft. Make it mandatory to do at least a year of military service, they can learn gun safety there.
.
.
I spent 8 years in the AF and I'm not dead.
Some career fields require up to a year in training (not to mention getting mission qualified at the unit level).
Why?Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.
Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...
You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?
If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?
You are under no obligation to know either way. That is what the background check is for.
Your free speech is unlikely to be left where a child can get it and accidentally kill or injure someone.Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militiaActually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.
What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......
Voting does not currently require a competency test. Should we require competency for rights granted by the Constituion? How about competency for free speech?
You're afraid it will lead to confiscation, there is no reason why it would. You are stating an opinion, not a fact.Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.They get them from private ownersCriminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.
That is why we need to register all guns
Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........
Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..
Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....
The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.
The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.
So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.
There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.
Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.
And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.
Gun registration precludes confiscation, just like 1938 Germany. Did I read you wrong? You're a Nazi instead of a Commie?
The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
Your free speech is unlikely to be left where a child can get it and accidentally kill or injure someone.Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militiaActually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.
Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.
What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......
Voting does not currently require a competency test. Should we require competency for rights granted by the Constituion? How about competency for free speech?
So it's really accidents that you want to ban then?
Accidental gun deaths don't even make the top 10 causes of accidental deaths
I would say it's you who doesn't understand what you support.So we create more laws that will not work? now that's childish.So, you are finally agreeing that laws do not prevent crime.And DWI laws haven't stopped people from getting drunk and causing wrecks. Did you have a point, dumb ass?
We're finally getting somewhere.
Praise Allah.
.
Laws do prevent crime. Only a childish fool would expect them to stop all crime,
You're obviously not smart enough to understand gun control laws. Read something besides NRA propaganda, and try again. I'm still waiting on proof that universal checks won't work at all.
"if you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu."
the anti-gun nuts dont have a seat at the table
Translation. Make it to expensive for most to own a firearm. Why should someone like myself go through all that when I've owned firearms for over 40 years and served in the military ?Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
Like what?A mandatory year of military service would have several beneficial results, one of which would be fire arms training. One other, undoing some of the leftist indoctrination and giving them a crash course on how to be an adult instead of a perpetually offended little hyper sensitive democrat cry baby.Making someone get training is nowhere in the same ballpark as forcing them to devote a year of their lives in involuntary servitude that may result in their death in armed conflict, hyperbole or not.Awesome hyperbole.Well, that would require people to serve and die in bullshit regime-change wars against their will. Mandatory school training is much less intrusive.
.
.
I spent 8 years in the AF and I'm not dead.
Some career fields require up to a year in training (not to mention getting mission qualified at the unit level).
I was an 'Integrated Avionics Instrumentation/Flight Controls System Specialist on the F-16, and there was only one school harder than that in the Air Force and that was Missiles, and those schools are no longer than a couple months. The new Missile and Space Systems Maintenance course in the Air Force is only 70 days, and it's the hardest school there is.
I know of no military training that takes a year in any branch.
Why not have ALL people be trained in the care and handling of firearms, regardless of whether or not they own or will own firearms?I want ALL people with guns to be properly trained in the care and handling of guns.
maybe your gun regulations are infringing on our rights and we dont care what you fascist think and is why you are not welcome at the table of freedom,,,"if you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu."
the anti-gun nuts dont have a seat at the table
Actually, the anti gun nutz don't need a seat at the table and neither do you gunnutters. Meanwhile, the rest of us are sitting at the table making sane decisions regarding gun regulations. And you aren't invited since you have a tendency to start throwing the shrimp cocktail all over everyone else when you don't get your way.
Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.
Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...
Translation. Make it to expensive for most to own a firearm. Why should someone like myself go through all that when I've owned firearms for over 40 years and served in the military ?Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
[Q
The claim was made that universal checks would have no effect either way. I just asked for proof of that claim.
You are confused about this, aren't you Moon Bat?
Almost all of the recent mass shooters passed a background check and it didn't stop them from committing a crime.
Background checks are absolutely useless. Passing a stupid background check is absolutely no guarantee that a person won't commit a crime in the future.
Background checks are just like all stupid Liberal policies. They make the idiot Liberals feel good but they are useless.
Somebody looking to use a firearm for criminal purposes will always be able to get one regardless of the oppressive laws against law abiding citizens.
It's already covered on most home owner's/renter's policies.As for insurance, I support that. Shit happens. But the insurance companies need to be watched very, very closely. The NRA can stop being such a public nuicance and actually fill that void and keep tabs on those insurance companies. Let's face it, most motorbikes only cost about 75 bucks a year to insure and are more prone to an accident than a handgun. So the insurance should be much less on the handgun. So it's not such a big deal.
So, you must ban and confiscate to prevent anyone from deciding to become a criminal?There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future,
