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.
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.
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.
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?
simply because moral practice should lead to forms of moral perfection.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?
Because all Persons of religion are people and people aren't perfect. I have no idea why people like you think that being religious makes you perfect.
No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.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
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?
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.
Allow me to translate: My position on licensing gun owners was shown to be pointless and unnecessary and I can't admit it is a dumb idea now......so I will call him names and try not to respond........
No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.[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?
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.
Allow me to translate: My position on licensing gun owners was shown to be pointless and unnecessary and I can't admit it is a dumb idea now......so I will call him names and try not to respond........
That's his plan in a nutshell
No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.[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?
No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.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?
Every citizen? At All times? Are you sure? And, does that make any sense at all?
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.
Allow me to translate: My position on licensing gun owners was shown to be pointless and unnecessary and I can't admit it is a dumb idea now......so I will call him names and try not to respond........
That's his plan in a nutshell
No, that's a Straw Man fallacy as well as a lie. What I get it is this:
Cowards feel the need to take a gun to the grocery store, to their kids little league game & piano recital - it's a scary world out their and one can never be too careful; a gun in their hand is a security blanket which makes cowards and paranoids feel safe and the Walter Mitty's life fantasy of becoming a hero.
No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.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?
Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; 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.No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.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?
Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me
dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their own elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns... 'cause that's how smart they are.
Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; 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.No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.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?
Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me
It really is that simple, except to the right.
dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their own elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns... 'cause that's how smart they are.
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.
I am not ambiguous simply because you don't understand our supreme law of the land.Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; 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.No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me
It really is that simple, except to the right.
Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different. Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; 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.No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me
It really is that simple, except to the right.
Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different. Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
