Short Answers Against Gun Control

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You don't have a right to drive on public roads so comparing gun ownership to driving a car is a failed analogy.

Yes you do, if you have a license, your vehicle is roadworthy and it's registered.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes you do, if you have a license, your vehicle is roadworthy and it's registered.

You license to drive is a privilege granted by the state which you have to pay a fee to get and use and can be revoked at any time for just about any reason.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You license to drive is a privilege granted by the state which you have to pay a fee to get and use and can be revoked at any time for just about any reason.

"can be revoked at any time for just about any reason".
So, can a gun.

 

[Blues Man]

"can be revoked at any time for just about any reason".
So, can a gun.

No. The process to deny a person ta Constitutional right is not the same as the one for any state to revoke a license.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No. The process to deny a person ta Constitutional right is not the same as the one for any state to revoke a license.

How?
Both end up in court.

 

[Blues Man]

How?
Both end up in court.

No they don't. Your driver's license can be revoked without a hearing all you'll get is a letter saying your license has been suspended or revoked.

That's because driving on public roads is a privilege not a right.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No they don't. Your driver's license can be revoked without a hearing all you'll get is a letter saying your license has been suspended or revoked.

Not without the same letter, stating a reason.
Same with a gun, except the police show up, in person.

That's because driving on public roads is a privilege not a right.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An example.

Specifically:
How is the Rittenhouse mattr an example of Republican prosecutors who plea bargain away gun charges, Republican judges release on no cash bail, and Republican politicians keep lowering the sentencing laws for gun felonies?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is wrong with registering your weapon?

As required by law?
- Its unnecessary
- Its ineffective
- It violates the constitution

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

As required by law?
- Its unnecessary
- Its ineffective
- It violates the constitution

So, the 1934 gun control act, should be thrown out to allow citizen's to own machine guns, hand grenades, poison gas?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, the 1934 gun control act, should be thrown out to allow citizen's to own machine guns, hand grenades, poison gas?

You'll have to ask an honest, factual question if you want an answer.

I'm sorry you do not like the fact a legal requirement for people to register their firearms is unnecessary, ineffective, and violates the constitution - but there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[2aguy]

Yes it is a conspiracy theory, and gullible republicans STILL repeat it.

The ostensible impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929, and the attempted assassination of President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Like the current National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1934 Act required NFA firearms to be registered and taxed.
Under the original Act, NFA weapons were machine guns, short-barreled rifles (SBR), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), any other weapons (AOW, i.e., concealable weapons other than pistols or revolvers), and silencers for any type of NFA or non-NFA weapon. Minimum barrel length was soon amended to 16 inches for rimfire rifles and by 1960 had been amended to 16 inches for centerfire rifles as well.

Here are the requirements for owning a machine gun in the United States:

• Must not be classified as a “prohibited person.”
• Be at least 21 years of age to purchase a machine gun from the current owner.
• Be a legal resident of the United States.
• Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm.
• Pass a BATFE background check with a typical process time of 8 to 10 months.
• Pay a one time $200 transfer tax. (You’ll need a stamp for each machine gun.)

Wow, it's only been 89 years, when is the government going to "BAN" machine guns?



It helps me and helps law enforcement if they ever get stolen.

So, what's the problem?

Gun registration ends in banning and confiscation......the only reason they haven't been able to do all that they want is the 2nd Amendment, and people who resist through our votes.......if they didn't have those blocks on their grabbing, we would be no different from Britain, Australia, France, Germany, Canada, New Zealand.....

You moron.

 

[2aguy]

So, the 1934 gun control act, should be thrown out to allow citizen's to own machine guns, hand grenades, poison gas?

Machine guns, yes...hand grenades and poison gas? You really are a simpleton, aren't you.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You'll have to ask an honest, factual question if you want an answer.

I'm sorry you do not like the fact a legal requirement for people to register their firearms is unnecessary, ineffective, and violates the constitution - but there's nothing I can do about it.

Well then, that's your opinion not backed up by ANY facts.
Why hasn't one republican in 89 years, proved what you claim?
Ya' know, like IN COURT.

 

[Flash]

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well then, that's your opinion not backed up by ANY facts.

You are, of course, wrong:

Fact:
There are no facts which demonstrate the necessity for firearms registration
Fact:
There are no facts which demonstrate the efficacy of firearms registration
Fact:
It is impossible to demonstrate firearms registration is is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation - as such the 2nd Amendment -preemptively- protects the right to keep and bear arms from such a requirement.

You cannot soundly argue otherwise - and your repsonse will prove me correct.
Ready?
Go!

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Gun registration ends in banning and confiscation......the only reason they haven't been able to do all that they want is the 2nd Amendment, and people who resist through our votes.......if they didn't have those blocks on their grabbing, we would be no different from Britain, Australia, France, Germany, Canada, New Zealand.....

You moron.

What a retarded Q-NUT?
Just because you claim it, doesn't make it true.
You're a loony as she is.

 

[2aguy]

What a retarded Q-NUT?
Just because you claim it, doesn't make it true.
You're a loony as she is.

You are a certifiable moron.

We have historical precedent from around the world...we have local and state governments, the most recent, Illinois, banning guns........you have nothing to defend gun registration......nothing.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You are, of course, wrong:

Fact:
There are no facts which demonstrate the necessity for firearms registration

Yes, there is.

In its 1868 constitution, Texas changed its keeping and bearing arms provision to give the legislature the power to regulate this right:
Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.

Two years later, in 1870, the Texas legislature passed An Act Regulating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which prohibited carrying any kind of firearm or other dangerous weapon into any church, school, social gathering, or anywhere else where people would be assembled:
That if any person shall go into any church or religious assembly, any school room or other place where persons are assembled for educational, literary or scientific purposes, or into a ballroom, social party or other social gathering composed of ladies and gentlemen, or to any election precinct on the day or days of any election, where any portion of the people of this State are collected to vote at any election, or to any other place where people may be assembled to muster or to perform any other public duty, or any other public assembly, and shall have about his person a bowie-knife, dirk or butcher-knife, or fire-arms, whether known as a six shooter, gun or pistol of any kind, such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not less than fifty or more than five hundred dollars, at the discretion of the court or jury trying the same; provided, that nothing contained in this section shall apply to locations subject to Indian depredations; and provided further, that this act shall not apply to any person or persons whose duty it is to bear arms on such occasions in discharge of duties imposed by law.

Fact:
There are no facts which demonstrate the efficacy of firearms registration

BS.
It protects the owner and helps law enforcement.

Fact:
It is impossible to demonstrate firearms registration is is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation - as such the 2nd Amendment -preemptively- protects the right to keep and bear arms from such a requirement.

No, it doesn't.
See above or:
1875’s United States v. Cruikshank had its origins in disputes over the outcome of the 1872 gubernatorial election in Louisiana — disputes that led to such violence that more than 100 Blacks were killed. The federal government charged some of the white vigilantes with violating an 1870 statute making it unlawful to conspire to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights. Part of the charges were that the defendants had taken away the arms with which the Blacks were defending themselves.

The justices unanimously freed the vigilantes, saying that the constitutional curbs on seizing guns do not apply to actions of individuals. The Second Amendment, they said, doesn’t give anyone the right to own firearms, it merely prohibits governmental action to take away their guns.

But the opinion by Chief Justice Morrison Waite went much further. The Second Amendment, he wrote “means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”

In other words, he said, the Bill of Rights creates no barriers to firearms regulation by state or local government.
The Supreme Court — again unanimously — reaffirmed that position 11 years later. The case had to do with the validity of a $10 fine.

You cannot soundly argue otherwise - and your repsonse will prove me correct.
Ready?
Go!

Awww, too bad.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You are a certifiable moron.

We have historical precedent from around the world...we have local and state governments, the most recent, Illinois, banning guns........you have nothing to defend gun registration......nothing.

See above Q-NUT.