M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #501
501 posts... no sound responses..
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.
Again, lots of claims and all unsupported. And yes, I am using THAT duff argument that unless you can show that limiting my rights is going to do anything then I see no reason to limit my rights. You want to make the change, not me. It isn't my job to show it won't work, it's yours to show it will.
So yes..... blah blah posts and still nothing.
Again, lots of claims and all unsupported. And yes, I am using THAT duff argument that unless you can show that limiting my rights is going to do anything then I see no reason to limit my rights. You want to make the change, not me. It isn't my job to show it won't work, it's yours to show it will.
So yes..... blah blah posts and still nothing.
No, the OP was " (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears."
So, the whole point of this is you can't do anything that infringes on the right to keep arms. So, it's not about showing that limiting rights is going to do anything at all. It's about whether not limiting right and implementing some kind of gun control is going to work.
So..... how can you limit guns without limiting guns? You tell me.
That is -absolutely- correct.So.... if I am understanding you, you don't think it is possible prevent criminals from getting guns without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding. Is that correct?
At some point the OP is going to realize that no one is buying his phony "honest and open debate on gun control" because they all see that he is simply not honest enough to have one in the first place.
Never mind that those putting up those arguments are doing so from ignorance and/or dishonesty.At some point the OP is going to realize that no one is buying his phony "honest and open debate on gun control" because they all see that he is simply not honest enough to have one in the first place.
That's very easy to say, but the reality is that not one single argument has been made which did not boil down to "we oughta just because". Complaining that it isn't fair because you are expected to back up a statement is ridiculous.
Never mind that those putting up those arguments are doing so from ignorance and/or dishonesty.At some point the OP is going to realize that no one is buying his phony "honest and open debate on gun control" because they all see that he is simply not honest enough to have one in the first place.
That's very easy to say, but the reality is that not one single argument has been made which did not boil down to "we oughta just because". Complaining that it isn't fair because you are expected to back up a statement is ridiculous.
Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.
Such as....?Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...
Driving a bus.Such as....?Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...
Looking for examples.
Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?Driving a bus.Such as....?Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...
Looking for examples.
Depends on the state and where your "barn" is. Some states require proof to buy. I'm sure if the bus is not drive-able you may be able to get a waiver for the pile of metal. You are quibbling. The place a BUS is used is the road. The purpose to transport PEOPLE. All of which require licensing and insurance.Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?Driving a bus.Such as....?Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...
Looking for examples.
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
"Ownership" and "use" are different thing; you want to take a require a condition for use and apply it as a condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.You are quibbling. The place a BUS is used is the road.Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?Driving a bus.Such as....?Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...
Looking for examples.
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
This time, you're using a condition of a specific scenario to justify a condition for a general scenario/ Apples/oranges.Another example is your home. To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains.
Condition of use v condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities.
You want to broad cast over the air? You need a license for that. But wait what about free speech?"Ownership" and "use" are different thing; you want to take a require a condition for use and apply it as a condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.You are quibbling. The place a BUS is used is the road.Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?Driving a bus.Such as....?Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.
As with other products that when used carry large risk...
Looking for examples.
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
This time, you're using a condition of a specific scenario to justify a condition for a general scenario/ Apples/oranges.Another example is your home. To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains.
Condition of use v condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities.
Now...
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?
How does any of this not qualify and a precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same -- that is, an infringement.
License to use the assigned frequency, not to speak your mind. Apples/orangesYou want to broad cast over the air? You need a license for that. But wait what about free speech?"Ownership" and "use" are different thing; you want to take a require a condition for use and apply it as a condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.You are quibbling. The place a BUS is used is the road.Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?Driving a bus.Such as....?
Looking for examples.
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
This time, you're using a condition of a specific scenario to justify a condition for a general scenario/ Apples/oranges.Another example is your home. To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains.
Condition of use v condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities.
Now...
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?
How does any of this not qualify and a precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same -- that is, an infringement.
Relevance?.You want to sell booze, or apples, or oranges? You need a license for that and liability insurance
Use v ownership. Apples.orangesYou want to drive a car? You need a license for that and liability insurance.
Use v ownership.You want to carry a gun to defend yourself in public? You need a license for that and liability insurance.
Use v ownershipYou want to go hunting with a gun? You need a license for that and liability insurance.
Based on what you've argued so far, where is the precedent for the constitutionality to require a license and insurance for the basic exercise of a right?You want to keep a gun at home for self defense? You need a license for that and liability insurance.
Your argument is that there is a difference between use and ownership. The self-defense use of any weapon is inherent. If you are a collector prove you can eliminate the use of the weapon. No different than proving the fully automatic capable weapon has been converted to semi-automatic.License to use the assigned frequency, not to speak your mind. Apples/orangesYou want to broad cast over the air? You need a license for that. But wait what about free speech?"Ownership" and "use" are different thing; you want to take a require a condition for use and apply it as a condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.You are quibbling. The place a BUS is used is the road.Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?Driving a bus.
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus? To keep it in your barn? To drive it across your yard?
This time, you're using a condition of a specific scenario to justify a condition for a general scenario/ Apples/oranges.Another example is your home. To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains.
Condition of use v condition of ownership. Apples/oranges.Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities.
Now...
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?
How does any of this not qualify and a precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same -- that is, an infringement.
Relevance?.You want to sell booze, or apples, or oranges? You need a license for that and liability insurance
Use v ownership. Apples.orangesYou want to drive a car? You need a license for that and liability insurance.
Use v ownership.You want to carry a gun to defend yourself in public? You need a license for that and liability insurance.
Use v ownershipYou want to go hunting with a gun? You need a license for that and liability insurance.
Based on what you've argued so far, where is the precedent for the constitutionality to require a license and insurance for the basic exercise of a right?You want to keep a gun at home for self defense? You need a license for that and liability insurance.
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?