It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[rightwinger]

...It worked here in Chicago....wait.....what?

They have not yet achieved "fewer guns", eh? Not when they can go across the State Line and buy a trunk-full.

They have not yet achieved "fewer guns", eh?

Private ownership was outlawed for decades.
Are you telling me that criminals didn't obey the law?

That's a shocker!!!
Don't tell the Dems, stupid fucking twats would keel over.

It is amazing they don't get that criminals break the law by definition. It is as if they actually believe that if we outlaw guns, or even certain types of guns, that criminals will turn theirs over. Astoundingly naive to put it mildly.

Drugs are illegal, however, criiminals still get them. Imagine that. The obvious difference between drugs and guns is that a criminal having drugs doesn't have a decided advantage over a law abiding citizen who doesn't.

I think the biggest issue is that many non-criminal urban dwellars in this country are very, very far removed from guns. Many have never even seen one in person. They live in a bubble and assume that everyone lives in the same bubble.

Then why make it easier to break the law?

We need to impact the flow of guns to criminals

 

[bigrebnc1775]

...You cannot demonstrate the necessity or efficacy of the restrictions you seek...

The object of the exercise is to dry-up the supply of firearms in the hands of those deemed too dangerous to possess them.

It will take decades to flush them out to the point where we are once again relatively safe, but, a journey of a thousand miles...

Nobody owns a functioning crystal ball... no point in speculation... fewer guns mean fewer crimes,,, simple math...

...thus, you seek to infringe on those rights.

Properly regulating your possession of Killing Tools will not infringe upon your right to do so - assuming you meet the criteria that The Law will set down.

----------

America has seen one too many innocent little kid's brains splattered across a classroom, because the Gun Lobby won't budge.

Well, comes a time when The People build up enough steam to roll over any obstruction like that....

Such a time seems close at-hand now...

Tick... tick... tick...

fewer guns mean fewer crimes,,, simple math...


It worked here in Chicago....wait.....what?

Worked in NYC where neighboring states have tough gun laws

You have too do an FFL and have it shipped to an FFL of that state

 

[M14 Shooter]

...You cannot demonstrate the necessity or efficacy of the restrictions you seek...

The object of the exercise is to dry-up the supply of firearms in the hands of those deemed too dangerous to possess them.

None of the restrictions you seek to lay on the exercise of the right to keeps and bear arms by the law abiding will achieve this.

... fewer guns mean fewer crimes,,, simple math...

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

Properly regulating your possession of Killing Tools will not infringe upon your right to do so - assuming you meet the criteria that The Law will set down.

Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of rights - any right - is an infringement on that right.
You cannot demonstrate the necessity for and the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, they are infringements.

America has seen one too many innocent little kid's brains splattered across a classroom, because the Gun Lobby won't budge.

It is impossible to compromise with anti-gun loons because they offer noting in return for the restrictions they seek.
Thus, there's no rational reason to give an inch.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...It worked here in Chicago....wait.....what?

They have not yet achieved "fewer guns", eh? Not when they can go across the State Line and buy a trunk-full.

How are you unaware of the fact this a federal felony?

 

[Kondor3]

...Why don't you understand that at the requirement for a license for the basic exercise of a right, in and of itself, violates the constitution?

Nahhhhhhh... that's just "regulating" the "militia"... "well"...

as to be expected in working order.

That is merely one of several interpretations, and it is not the one that will control in future...

It was the interpretation of the 18th century when the second amendment was written. The people who wrote the Constitution were very deliberate in the words they used.

The same arguments were used when challenging the possession of machine guns, hand grenades, armored vehicles, etc.

Those arguments will fail in this new context the same way they failed in the old context.

 

[Kondor3]

...It worked here in Chicago....wait.....what?

They have not yet achieved "fewer guns", eh? Not when they can go across the State Line and buy a trunk-full.

How are you unaware of the fact this a federal felony?

When gun-runners fill-up their trunks in easy-to-buy States, then park across the State line in Indiana, and sell to Chicago gang-bangers, it doesn't matter.

The way to deal with Chicago gun-crime is to eliminate the easy-to-buy status of various States and bring them into line with a national gun-control ideal.

That, and shooting gang-bangers on sight.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

...Why don't you understand that at the requirement for a license for the basic exercise of a right, in and of itself, violates the constitution?

Nahhhhhhh... that's just "regulating" the "militia"... "well"...

as to be expected in working order.

That is merely one of several interpretations, and it is not the one that will control in future...

It was the interpretation of the 18th century when the second amendment was written. The people who wrote the Constitution were very deliberate in the words they used.

The same arguments were used when challenging the possession of machine guns, hand grenades, armored vehicles, etc.

Those arguments will fail in this new context the same way they failed in the old context.

How do you know what was used? frogs don't know they are being boiled alive if you slowly bring up the heat.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

...It worked here in Chicago....wait.....what?

They have not yet achieved "fewer guns", eh? Not when they can go across the State Line and buy a trunk-full.

How are you unaware of the fact this a federal felony?

When gun-runners fill-up their trunks in easy-to-buy States, then park across the State line in Indiana, and sell to Chicago gang-bangers, it doesn't matter.

The way to deal with Chicago gun-crime is to eliminate the easy-to-buy status of various States and bring them into line with a national gun-control ideal.

That, and shooting gang-bangers on sight.

What you are suggesting is a straw purchase and is illegal. On the other hand, you cannot cross state lines and buy a gun and not be a resident of that state. You would have to ship it to an FFL to pick it up.

 

[hadit]

...It worked here in Chicago....wait.....what?

They have not yet achieved "fewer guns", eh? Not when they can go across the State Line and buy a trunk-full.

Yet those places where they can "buy a trunk-full" have less violent gun crime than where they can't. Obviously, guns are not the controlling factor.

 

[rightwinger]

Guns are becoming less socially acceptable

As gun owners die off, families don’t know what to do with dads gun collection

 

[pismoe]

...Why don't you understand that at the requirement for a license for the basic exercise of a right, in and of itself, violates the constitution?

Nahhhhhhh... that's just "regulating" the "militia"... "well"...

as to be expected in working order.

That is merely one of several interpretations, and it is not the one that will control in future...

It was the interpretation of the 18th century when the second amendment was written. The people who wrote the Constitution were very deliberate in the words they used.

The same arguments were used when challenging the possession of machine guns, hand grenades, armored vehicles, etc.

Those arguments will fail in this new context the same way they failed in the old context.

--------------------------------------------its LEGAL to own machine guns and Armored vehicles if a TANK is an Armored vehicle . Probably legal to own an Armored HUMVEE also I don't know about GRENADES but i'd GUESS that those can also be privately owned [as I GUESS] Kondor .

 

[pismoe]

Guns are becoming less socially acceptable

As gun owners die off, families don’t know what to do with dads gun collection

--------------------------------------------- that's OK as I am only really interested in my Lifetime that's probably left as I Estimate . And after I am gone its up to the 'hip hoppers' , dopers and millennials to keep their GUNS RWinger

 

[M14 Shooter]

...It worked here in Chicago....wait.....what?

They have not yet achieved "fewer guns", eh? Not when they can go across the State Line and buy a trunk-full.

How are you unaware of the fact this a federal felony?

When gun-runners fill-up their trunks in easy-to-buy States, then park across the State line in Indiana, and sell to Chicago gang-bangers, it doesn't matter.

Why do you refuse to understand this is a felony?

 

[Kondor3]

...It worked here in Chicago....wait.....what?

They have not yet achieved "fewer guns", eh? Not when they can go across the State Line and buy a trunk-full.

How are you unaware of the fact this a federal felony?

When gun-runners fill-up their trunks in easy-to-buy States, then park across the State line in Indiana, and sell to Chicago gang-bangers, it doesn't matter.

Why do you refuse to understand this is a felony?

Ahhhh... but I don't... I merely advocate for nationwide uniformity of gun-control so that guns from Easy Purchase states don't find their way into gun-runners' trunks.

 

[Kondor3]

Nahhhhhhh... that's just "regulating" the "militia"... "well"...

as to be expected in working order.

That is merely one of several interpretations, and it is not the one that will control in future...

It was the interpretation of the 18th century when the second amendment was written. The people who wrote the Constitution were very deliberate in the words they used.

The same arguments were used when challenging the possession of machine guns, hand grenades, armored vehicles, etc.

Those arguments will fail in this new context the same way they failed in the old context.

--------------------------------------------its LEGAL to own machine guns and Armored vehicles if a TANK is an Armored vehicle . Probably legal to own an Armored HUMVEE also I don't know about GRENADES but i'd GUESS that those can also be privately owned [as I GUESS] Kondor .

Are you allowed to have a Ma-Duece in your State? An Abrams? A 105mm field howitzer?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

as to be expected in working order.

That is merely one of several interpretations, and it is not the one that will control in future...

It was the interpretation of the 18th century when the second amendment was written. The people who wrote the Constitution were very deliberate in the words they used.

The same arguments were used when challenging the possession of machine guns, hand grenades, armored vehicles, etc.

Those arguments will fail in this new context the same way they failed in the old context.

--------------------------------------------its LEGAL to own machine guns and Armored vehicles if a TANK is an Armored vehicle . Probably legal to own an Armored HUMVEE also I don't know about GRENADES but i'd GUESS that those can also be privately owned [as I GUESS] Kondor .

Are you allowed to have a Ma-Duece in your State? An Abrams? A 105mm field howitzer?

well no one should use a red herring

 

[SAYIT]

...It worked here in Chicago....wait.....what?

They have not yet achieved "fewer guns", eh? Not when they can go across the State Line and buy a trunk-full.

How are you unaware of the fact this a federal felony?

When gun-runners fill-up their trunks in easy-to-buy States, then park across the State line in Indiana, and sell to Chicago gang-bangers, it doesn't matter.

The way to deal with Chicago gun-crime is to eliminate the easy-to-buy status of various States and bring them into line with a national gun-control ideal.

That, and shooting gang-bangers on sight.

So you're saying when legal access to guns is limited, criminals manage to get 'em anyway. Yeah ... stuff your gun-control where the sun don't shine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...It worked here in Chicago....wait.....what?

They have not yet achieved "fewer guns", eh? Not when they can go across the State Line and buy a trunk-full.

How are you unaware of the fact this a federal felony?

When gun-runners fill-up their trunks in easy-to-buy States, then park across the State line in Indiana, and sell to Chicago gang-bangers, it doesn't matter.

Why do you refuse to understand this is a felony?

Ahhhh... but I don't...

Then you recognize the fallacy of your position.
Good.

 

[Kondor3]

...Then you recognize the fallacy of your position. Good.

Incorrect. That is merely your 'take' on the matter. Immaterial.

 

[Kondor3]

...So you're saying when legal access to guns is limited, criminals manage to get 'em anyway. Yeah ... stuff your gun-control where the sun don't shine.

Nope.

I'm saying that when the supply of guns coming from East-to-Buy States has dried up, we'll see less trafficking in Illegal firearms.

If you can't get 'em, you can't sell 'em outta your trunk.

Simple math.