Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Wry Catcher]

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

Major difference.

Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders

Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals

Exactly........they don't really care about criminals getting guns...their policy choices show it....they just hate normal people who want to own guns and they know they can punish those people with the right laws....the more confusing the better.......

There is nothing normal about you!

 

[Wry Catcher]

I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens

No shit Dick Tracy. If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that. An answer you have yet to provide. You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't

That would include the vast majority of citizens. Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh? If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?

Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime. You really are this stupid, aren't you?

[I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]

Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times. Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too. You and M14-shooter need to grow up.

So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed

Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.

Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns. Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.

Really? The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting. Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.

That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with. You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic

Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?

 

[Wry Catcher]

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

Major difference.

Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders

Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals

Do you ever think before you post? Speed limits have an effect on all driver's, some violate the speed laws and some don't don't, but to suggest the limit isn't effective in controlling most of the driver's most of the time is ridiculous.

 

[kaz]

Really? The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting. Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.

That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with. You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic

Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?[/QUOTE]

LOL, so my choices are gun laws that prevent people from being armed entirely, particularly when they need guns, or that every citizen has to be armed at all times. I thought Republicans were the black and white party, LOL.

In those cases, a few people being armed would have done the trick, but no one was armed. Well, other than the shooter. How'd those gun free zones work out for you?

 

[kaz]

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

Major difference.

Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders

Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals

Do you ever think before you post? Speed limits have an effect on all driver's, some violate the speed laws and some don't don't, but to suggest the limit isn't effective in controlling most of the driver's most of the time is ridiculous.

If you don't speed, how do speed limits affect you?

If you are a criminal, gun laws do nothing to prevent you from getting a gun. They just make you work a little harder

 

[cygonaut]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

My plan is to make it more difficult to get a gun and suggest easier places the criminal can go, such as Alaska.

The rush is on.

 

[kaz]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

My plan is to make it more difficult to get a gun and suggest easier places the criminal can go, such as Alaska.

The rush is on.

Maybe you could be a little more specific about how exactly you're going to make it "more difficult to get a gun?"

 

[2aguy]

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

Major difference.

Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders

Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals

Do you ever think before you post? Speed limits have an effect on all driver's, some violate the speed laws and some don't don't, but to suggest the limit isn't effective in controlling most of the driver's most of the time is ridiculous.

No one said the speed limit didn't have an effect on "Law abiding drivers" just like the current 22,000 gun laws affect law abiding gun owners. Our current gun laws are already effective....if a someone uses a gun to commit a crime ( if someone speeds) then they are arrested (then they get a ticket) but........they don't get a ticket until they break the speeding law......

so again...no registration of guns is needed, and no licensing of gun owners is needed.....if you commit a crime with a gun...you are already arrested for that....you don't need to license people to do that it happens already....

if you are a convicted criminal...and are caught in the mere possession of a gun.....you are already arrested for that....right now.....you don't need to license law abiding citizens to do that....it is already the law and it already happens....


What part of those processes do you not get?

Licensing and registration of gun owners and guns does nothing..........you can arrest anyone if they commit a crime with a gun, and you can arrest convicted criminals if they merely possess a gun.....

Again...no license needed and no registration of guns needed.....

 

[2aguy]

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

Major difference.

Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders

Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals

Do you ever think before you post? Speed limits have an effect on all driver's, some violate the speed laws and some don't don't, but to suggest the limit isn't effective in controlling most of the driver's most of the time is ridiculous.

If you don't speed, how do speed limits affect you?

If you are a criminal, gun laws do nothing to prevent you from getting a gun. They just make you work a little harder

They just make you work a little harder

Actually, it doesn't make it harder for criminals to get guns....the 7 time convicted illegal alien had a gun in gun grabber paradise in San Francisco....do you know how long it would have taken that law abiding woman who was shot to get a gun in that state and city?

The various criminals in this country can get guns faster than the law abiding citizens can...they don't have to wait, they don't have to go through any checks...

In fact...in France it is easier for a criminal to get a fully automatic rifle with 30 round magazines than it is for a law abiding citizen to get a .22 bolt action rifle.......

 

[kaz]

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

Major difference.

Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders

Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals

Do you ever think before you post? Speed limits have an effect on all driver's, some violate the speed laws and some don't don't, but to suggest the limit isn't effective in controlling most of the driver's most of the time is ridiculous.

No one said the speed limit didn't have an effect on "Law abiding drivers" just like the current 22,000 gun laws affect law abiding gun owners. Our current gun laws are already effective....if a someone uses a gun to commit a crime ( if someone speeds) then they are arrested (then they get a ticket) but........they don't get a ticket until they break the speeding law......

so again...no registration of guns is needed, and no licensing of gun owners is needed.....if you commit a crime with a gun...you are already arrested for that....you don't need to license people to do that it happens already....

if you are a convicted criminal...and are caught in the mere possession of a gun.....you are already arrested for that....right now.....you don't need to license law abiding citizens to do that....it is already the law and it already happens....


What part of those processes do you not get?

Licensing and registration of gun owners and guns does nothing..........you can arrest anyone if they commit a crime with a gun, and you can arrest convicted criminals if they merely possess a gun.....

Again...no license needed and no registration of guns needed.....

Perfectly stated, you won't get a lucid response

 

[2aguy]

Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?

 

[kaz]

Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?

Crickets....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?

I've explained in detail why I think a state license issued to gun owner might mitigate some gun violence - that you keep asking me to explain why I believe what I do is childish.

I've never brought up gun registration except in one thread; wherein I expressed my opinion that all guns ought to be insured, and thus registered with the owners insurance company.

I also stated in that same thread that the record of guns held by an insurance agency could be shielded from the government.

Now, please list the source for the 22,000 gun laws you claim exist.

 

[danielpalos]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Our Second Amendment is my plan. Don't like it, don't vote for me.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The first story in the Bible after the expulsion from paradise is about a guy killing his brother with a rock. The gun is just a tool. Ban it, somehow get rid of them from every hand, and we'll still be killing each other over trivial nonsense and greed and lust.

It's not a problem with the tool, but the hand behind the tool. It's just easier to pretend it's the tool's fault when something goes pear-shaped.

This is not an original example nor does it take into account that a gun can and is used at a distance; a knife, rock, Garrote wire, etc., or the feet or fists need to be up close and personal, putting the killer at risk of injury or death.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Isn't attempted murder and murder already illegal? If so, how are additional laws going to prevent more instances of those two crimes?

Making a law to control guns is like reacting to drunk driving by passing laws restricting cars.

It's not the gun that's the problem, it's people. What's really unfortunate though is they aren't abnormal or mentally ill by virtue of shooting somebody as our long bloody history of warfare with perfectly sane people attests. To the criminal the reason they shot somoene made perfect sense. Just like every time we go to war and slaughter people that makes sense too.

Never going to end violence when the ogvernment who's supposed to be the noble good example is doing all the shit we blame criminals for doing but by being the ones who makes the laws, says when they do it it's ok.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the right has some "splaining" to do; the social morals of Religion are free. Why are some Persons of religion being illegal to the laws of a god?

 

[2aguy]

Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?

I've explained in detail why I think a state license issued to gun owner might mitigate some gun violence - that you keep asking me to explain why I believe what I do is childish.

I've never brought up gun registration except in one thread; wherein I expressed my opinion that all guns ought to be insured, and thus registered with the owners insurance company.

I also stated in that same thread that the record of guns held by an insurance agency could be shielded from the government.

Now, please list the source for the 22,000 gun laws you claim exist.

actually, no you didn't. You said we need to give people licenses but then nothing you said made sense after that......I pointed out that everything you said that should be done on the breaking of the law by a license holder already happens......without the license.

 

[danielpalos]

i believe well regulated militia service should include, concealed carry weapons qualification.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?

I've explained in detail why I think a state license issued to gun owner might mitigate some gun violence - that you keep asking me to explain why I believe what I do is childish.

I've never brought up gun registration except in one thread; wherein I expressed my opinion that all guns ought to be insured, and thus registered with the owners insurance company.

I also stated in that same thread that the record of guns held by an insurance agency could be shielded from the government.

Now, please list the source for the 22,000 gun laws you claim exist.

actually, no you didn't. You said we need to give people licenses but then nothing you said made sense after that......I pointed out that everything you said that should be done on the breaking of the law by a license holder already happens......without the license.

Stop being a three year old. Let's agree, you're too dumb to get it, and I'm sick of responding to a moron.