CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[alang1216]

There's no limit on how powerful a vehicle may be. Government imposed limit , I mean. Dodge builds a vehicle with 707 HP right out of the factory. Now , why would they do that? The damn thing does 0-60 in <4 seconds and has a top speed of 198 MPH. Why? Obviously there is no public road where that is necessary, or legal. Should Dodge be responsible for making sure no one can use their cars to speed?

I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars? Also, I thought some Montana roads don't have any speed limits so I'd love to have that Dodge out there.

That's an old wive's tail, there are no roads in Montana that don't have speed limits

Also, Chrysler did build a rocket powered car.

Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it was not a success.

In the late 90's Montana had no speed limit during daytime hours. The law was that drivers were allowed to drive at speeds considered "reasonable and prudent."

I remember that car. As I recall it raced at Indy at least once but was too slow to accelerate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Also, Chrysler did build a rocket powered car.
Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a jet engine, not a rocket

 

[BULLDOG]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

So someone driviing 40 miles down a side street isn't inherently dangerous.....? Really? You just explained how laws work, yet you keep using that idea that we shouldn't have laws if some people don't obey them...why do you anti gunners do that?

You know I didn't say that. You're the one who constantly claims that we shouldn't have laws because people don't always obey them.

 

[2aguy]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

So someone driviing 40 miles down a side street isn't inherently dangerous.....? Really? You just explained how laws work, yet you keep using that idea that we shouldn't have laws if some people don't obey them...why do you anti gunners do that?

You know I didn't say that. You're the one who constantly claims that we shouldn't have laws because people don't always obey them.

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope...now you are just lying....

Its all they do.

 

[BULLDOG]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

So someone driviing 40 miles down a side street isn't inherently dangerous.....? Really? You just explained how laws work, yet you keep using that idea that we shouldn't have laws if some people don't obey them...why do you anti gunners do that?

You know I didn't say that. You're the one who constantly claims that we shouldn't have laws because people don't always obey them.

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

 

[2aguy]

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

So someone driviing 40 miles down a side street isn't inherently dangerous.....? Really? You just explained how laws work, yet you keep using that idea that we shouldn't have laws if some people don't obey them...why do you anti gunners do that?

You know I didn't say that. You're the one who constantly claims that we shouldn't have laws because people don't always obey them.

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

 

[BULLDOG]

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

So someone driviing 40 miles down a side street isn't inherently dangerous.....? Really? You just explained how laws work, yet you keep using that idea that we shouldn't have laws if some people don't obey them...why do you anti gunners do that?

You know I didn't say that. You're the one who constantly claims that we shouldn't have laws because people don't always obey them.

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

 

[2aguy]

So someone driviing 40 miles down a side street isn't inherently dangerous.....? Really? You just explained how laws work, yet you keep using that idea that we shouldn't have laws if some people don't obey them...why do you anti gunners do that?

You know I didn't say that. You're the one who constantly claims that we shouldn't have laws because people don't always obey them.

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

 

[BULLDOG]

You know I didn't say that. You're the one who constantly claims that we shouldn't have laws because people don't always obey them.

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You know I didn't say that. You're the one who constantly claims that we shouldn't have laws because people don't always obey them.

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

You're as wrong as he is. A license to own a gun is NOTHING like a poll tax.

 

[2aguy]

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

No.....my point is that we have laws and they work.....if you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail, right now with existing laws......that is the point.........you propose new laws that you guys claim will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....we show they won't then you say we don't want any laws...that is how you guys argue...it is silly, but you keep doing it.

 

[2aguy]

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

You're as wrong as he is. A license to own a gun is NOTHING like a poll tax.

If you have to pay a fee to get a license it is no different than a poll tax........a fee to exercise a Right, no matter how it is dig unisex is a Poll Tax......for it not to be a Poll Tax it would have to be free........and no test....

 

[Divine Wind]

You're as wrong as he is. A license to own a gun is NOTHING like a poll tax.

Both are unConstitutional and against what the Founders believed, IMO.

 

[BULLDOG]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

No.....my point is that we have laws and they work.....if you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail, right now with existing laws......that is the point.........you propose new laws that you guys claim will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....we show they won't then you say we don't want any laws...that is how you guys argue...it is silly, but you keep doing it.

So hung up on your talking point till logic doesn't stand a chance with you. It's stupid to say limiting some access to guns by thugs won't have any effect. Will it stop all of them? No, but some is better than none. Your main excuse is that checks won't stop crooks. Speed limits won't stop people from driving fast, and medical review won't stop bad doctors. This part of your talking point is shown to be ridiculous and invalid.

 

[BULLDOG]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

My thought is, if you want to legally own ANY gun, you must undergo the same FBI background check that is currently required to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.

ONCE, after you pass that background check you can buy whatever you like, with checks in place where that right can be suspended for cause of course.

Good for 10 years, no state may have tougher or different standards. No need for a background check every time you buy a gun. No need for a background check on private sales.

If you come in contact with police and have a gun you aren't legally licenses to own, 10 years in prison per gun MANDATORY regardless of why you came in contact with police, and independent of other crimes you committed.

Meaning, no rolling a 10 year sentence for the gun in with a 10 year sentence for rape, and only serving 8 years, Nope, you serve 10 years for the gun PERIOD, and whatever for the additional crime. Just as an example.