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

[Blues Man]

No one needs you to tell them what they need

let's keep it real

Good advice . Why don't you take it?

.......it was stated no one needs a ---etc--you know--a high capacity weapon--and this is very hard to argue
...why don't you state why you need it?

I don't have an Ar 15 because I have no use for a small caliber rodent gun.

That said I don't have to justify anything I do to you or anyone else as long as I am not breaking any laws or harming anyone in the process.

as stated, no need for it
I had some idiot that said we don't need cars--hahahaha
comparing cars/POOLS/knives/etc to firearms = hahahahhahhaaha

No I think the question was "Why do you need a car that can exceed the posted speed limits?"

And even that question is irrelevant.

No one has to justify their choice of automobile to you or anyone else.

 

[rightwinger]

You have no Constitutional right to shoot up a school
We the People have no obligation to help you

We the People have a Bill of Rights.

You the Fascists have the right to dream about eliminating it.

Yes we do
You have no right to help those who want to shoot up a school

Here we go again

Not all people are the same person.

No law abiding gun owner has ever helped anyone shoot up a school

You help when you do nothing to stop them from buying their weapon of choice. You help when you allow them to load that gun with a magazine that has no use other than kill lots of people without reloading

 

[MAGAman]

no one needs a semi with a 50/20/etc mag

You don't need CNN to be on air 24/7. 5 hours is more than enough. That doesn't give government the right to limit them to 5 hours.

My rights don't care what Fascists think I need.

 

[rightwinger]

let's keep it real

Good advice . Why don't you take it?

.......it was stated no one needs a ---etc--you know--a high capacity weapon--and this is very hard to argue
...why don't you state why you need it?

I don't have an Ar 15 because I have no use for a small caliber rodent gun.

That said I don't have to justify anything I do to you or anyone else as long as I am not breaking any laws or harming anyone in the process.

as stated, no need for it
I had some idiot that said we don't need cars--hahahaha
comparing cars/POOLS/knives/etc to firearms = hahahahhahhaaha

No I think the question was "Why do you need a car that can exceed the posted speed limits?"

And even that question is irrelevant.

No one has to justify their choice of automobile to you or anyone else.

There are restrictions on cars being “street legal”

 

[MAGAman]

You have no Constitutional right to shoot up a school
We the People have no obligation to help you

We the People have a Bill of Rights.

You the Fascists have the right to dream about eliminating it.

Yes we do
You have no right to help those who want to shoot up a school

Here we go again

Not all people are the same person.

No law abiding gun owner has ever helped anyone shoot up a school

You help when you di nothing to stop them from buying their weapon of choice. You help when you allow them to load that gun with a magazine that has no use other than kill lots of people without reloading

Nope.

Wrong again, Adolph.

 

[harmonica]

You have no Constitutional right to shoot up a school
We the People have no obligation to help you

We the People have a Bill of Rights.

You the Fascists have the right to dream about eliminating it.

Yes we do
You have no right to help those who want to shoot up a school

Here we go again

Not all people are the same person.

No law abiding gun owner has ever helped anyone shoot up a school

wrong-Virginia Tech shooting

 

[MAGAman]

.......it was stated no one needs a ---etc--you know--a high capacity weapon--and this is very hard to argue
...why don't you state why you need it?

You're not listening.

Nobody's asking you for permission.

 

[harmonica]

.......it was stated no one needs a ---etc--you know--a high capacity weapon--and this is very hard to argue
...why don't you state why you need it?

You're not listening.

Nobody's asking you for permission.

so, no one needs one......?? is this what you are saying ?

 

[hadit]

Second says nothing about price

But if you pass a law mandating safety devices that price the guns out of the range of a buyer, you are infringing on his or her right to bear arms. I understand Democrats always see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but real Americans see it as a document to be respected.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment requiring guns be affordable. When the 2nd amendment was written guns were too expensive for a large segment of the population. The cost of a gun in today's dollars would be nearly a thousand dollars.

But a law that mandated expensive additions to guns would make them unaffordable to some buyers and violae the their right to buy a gun. The government is clearly forbidden by the second amendment from preventing an American citizen from acquiring a gun, so if the government believes these additions are important, the government should pay for them. If you are only concerned with safety and not just harassing gun owners, that should be ok with you.

Affordable is very subjective. For some people paying $50 is not affordable for other $3000 would be affordable. The second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The amendment gives you you the right to bear arms, not the right to buy affordable arms. Whether you have to work a day or month to earn enough money to buy a gun is irrelevant.

If the government placed a tax on the sale of guns clearly for the purpose of infringing on 2nd amendment rights, the courts would surely rule it to be violation of the 2nd amendment. However, it government caused gun prices to go up due to safety requirement which save lives, the courts would probably rule the the purpose of the action was not prevent gun ownership but to make them safer. It would really depend on the purpose.

The second amendment restricts the government's ability to infringe on a person's right to bear arms, so if the government wants to mandate devices on guns that would make them too expensive for some to buy, that would infringe on that person's right to bear arms, and the government would have to show this safety device was so essential and of such overbearing importance that the Constitution has to be set aside. We all know this is not the case and the call for these safety devices is motivated only by a desire to harass gun owners.

There's precedent. It wasn't that long ago that state governments tried to make it difficult for minorities to vote by instituting poll taxes. That was illegal. Government cannot force a cost on exercising a freedom. And voting is not even an explicitly protected constitutional freedom.

 

[MAGAman]

so, no one needs one......?? is this what you are saying ?

Readng comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

No. I didn't say that. Pay attention.

I said I don't give a shit whether or not Fascists think I need it.

 

[hadit]

More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns

I guess you Fascists didn't notice that there is no right to bear cigarettes in th Bill of Rights.

A person has dominion over his own body

You have no say in what he chooses to eat smoke, snort shoot into his veins or shoves up his ass

But there is a right to bear a musket AK's AR 's NO

Likewise then you have the right to put a pen to paper, get on a horse, and carry a letter to someone. You don't have a right to tap on a keyboard and write something half the world can read in seconds.

 

[harmonica]

so, no one needs one......?? is this what you are saying ?

Readng comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

No. I didn't say that. Pay attention.

I said I don't give a shit whether or not Fascists think I need it.

you sound like the '''leftists''' [******] who argue with emotion and not common sense

 

[hadit]

Moron....... automatic weapons are in the hands of a tiny number of collectors....none of our mass public shootings has been done with automatic weapons, and our criminals do not use them for crime......what about this issue is so hard for you to understand?

None of our mass public shootings you say??

Cite one, just one, mass shooting perpetrated with an automatic weapon.

So.....since automatic weapons weren't used....

Thank you for agreeing that no mass shooting was perpetrated with automatic weapons.

Yup....Sandy Hook parents are happy you pointed that out....what s since...

Automatic weapons are used in war because the other guy us shoot I g back....How many of those kids in Sandy Hook were shootinf back.

The AR weapons are designed to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible.

Good point. If someone in Sandy Hook was shooting back, maybe some of those kids would be alive today. Stop the carnage!

 

[MAGAman]

you sound like the '''leftists''' [******] who argue with emotion and not common sense

Liberty is common sense.

The Bill of Rights is common sense.

Fascists trying to eliminate weapons that cause less than 1% of murders while ignoring inner city murders is an emotional response.

Keep digging

 

[Blues Man]

You have no Constitutional right to shoot up a school
We the People have no obligation to help you

We the People have a Bill of Rights.

You the Fascists have the right to dream about eliminating it.

Yes we do
You have no right to help those who want to shoot up a school

Here we go again

Not all people are the same person.

No law abiding gun owner has ever helped anyone shoot up a school

You help when you di nothing to stop them from buying their weapon of choice. You help when you allow them to load that gun with a magazine that has no use other than kill lots of people without reloading

I suppose I can say you help rapists because you allow them to assault women but that doesn't make it true.

The fact is of the many millions of AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are never used to kill anyone.

 

[hadit]

None of our mass public shootings you say??

Cite one, just one, mass shooting perpetrated with an automatic weapon.

So.....since automatic weapons weren't used....

Thank you for agreeing that no mass shooting was perpetrated with automatic weapons.

Yup....Sandy Hook parents are happy you pointed that out....what s since...

Automatic weapons are used in war because the other guy us shoot I g back....How many of those kids in Sandy Hook were shootinf back.

The AR weapons are designed to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible.

NRA finds them useful in slaughtering schoolchildren
That is why they protect them

Okay, that's just stupid, and beneath you.

 

[Blues Man]

You have no Constitutional right to shoot up a school
We the People have no obligation to help you

We the People have a Bill of Rights.

You the Fascists have the right to dream about eliminating it.

Yes we do
You have no right to help those who want to shoot up a school

Here we go again

Not all people are the same person.

No law abiding gun owner has ever helped anyone shoot up a school

wrong-Virginia Tech shooting

What law abiding gun owners helped the VA tech shooter?

 

[harmonica]

you sound like the '''leftists''' [******] who argue with emotion and not common sense

Liberty is common sense.

The Bill of Rights is common sense.

Fascists trying to eliminate weapons that cause less than 1% of murders while ignoring inner city murders is an emotional response.

Keep digging

firearms cause over 60% of murders....we want to try to keep down murders, yes?
...humans will always murder....why allow them ''tools'' that make murder VERY easy?
..common sense tells you a ''tool'' designed to only kill and kill many very fast should be more regulated than a car

 

[Blues Man]

Good advice . Why don't you take it?

.......it was stated no one needs a ---etc--you know--a high capacity weapon--and this is very hard to argue
...why don't you state why you need it?

I don't have an Ar 15 because I have no use for a small caliber rodent gun.

That said I don't have to justify anything I do to you or anyone else as long as I am not breaking any laws or harming anyone in the process.

as stated, no need for it
I had some idiot that said we don't need cars--hahahaha
comparing cars/POOLS/knives/etc to firearms = hahahahhahhaaha

No I think the question was "Why do you need a car that can exceed the posted speed limits?"

And even that question is irrelevant.

No one has to justify their choice of automobile to you or anyone else.

There are restrictions on cars being “street legal”

And that has nothing to do with the top speed does it?

Why do you need a car than can do 66 MPH?

 

[Uncensored2008]

...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

And by "worked" you mean it was a complete failure, NY City pre-Giuliani had one of the highest per capita murder rates in the nation.