Should there be mandatory training before you can purchase a firearm?

[DrLove]

I'm admiring this utterly egregious assumption of yours that YOU are the only person in America with common sense.

Most people with common sense don't want blind people to own guns.

YouGov 2014

Do you think it should be legal or illegal for someone who is blind to purchase a gun?
Legal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
Illegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

But thank you for the admiration.

 

[Kondor3]

...AND, through all this^^^^^^^^^^

You are still seeking a problem for your solution. Let that sink in.

Oh, I hear you saying that there is no problem.

YOUR problem is that you can no longer sell that idea to vast and growing numbers of Americans who have come to realize the wrongness of that response.

Then you would have a response to the question: What is the problem that you have a solution for?

Damn, you are getting boring.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[BlackSand]

You must offer something of worth to a compromise ... Those opposed to firearms rights are not offering anything but a list of demands. If the choice is to acquiesce to your demands absent any compromise ... Go pound sand. .

The compromise is that you get to keep your guns; despite what the worst of the Snowflake Crowd want.

In truth, there are three (3) kinds of Gun Control Advocates:

1. Centrists - who believe that much more is needed, but who also believe in the Right to Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment

2. Extremists - who want to take all your guns away or severely curtail ownership, so that the Lions and the Lambs will all lie down together in peace

3. Fence Sitters - the Sheeple who want something done, but who haven't bothered to think it through, and who will Follow The Leader

Personally, I identify with (1), and there are considerable numbers of us out there.

The true Gun Grabbers gather under (2); there are large numbers of these as well, but they are also the most vocal and visible.

The vast majority of Americans who lean towards Gun Control fall under (3) - clueless, they lean on the leadership of others

---------------

You(r side) needs to be dealing with (1) to hammer out a real and effective and comprehensive solution that (1) and (3) can live with.

Do that, and (2) becomes isolated and will no longer be getting all the oxygen in the room and will eventually fade into oblivion.

---------------

Your (side's) trouble is that you believe you're un-touchable in this context and that (2) will never attain their goals.

Fail to reach a substantive and comprehensive solution to vetting, licensing, registration, transactions and upkeep, and they probably will attain those goals.

You really don't think that Right -leaning control of the House and Senate and Oval Office and SCOTUS are going to last forever, do you?

----------------

Every political cycle, the clamor for effective nationwide Gun Control grows louder, and the Public Opinion noose tightens around you(r side) and the NRA.

Long term, your choices are (a) effective nationwide gun control or (b) bans and seizures when Public Opinion finally swings far enough to let them get away with it.

Every time we see another bloody slaughter of little children you(r side) counters with the same tired old shopworn defenses and propaganda, and a new viciousness.

Those are no longer working to deflect Public Opinion anywhere near as well as they did in times past, and your problem gets worse with each slaughter of innocents.

Far better and more sensible to concede the matter of nationwide standards and controlling law, and take the wind out of the sails of (2), before your position disintegrates.

----------------

Crafted intelligently, comprehensive nationwide gun control can preserve our rights while guaranteeing that this is the end of it; that the (2)'s can't take it any further.

Without an attainable mission objective, the (2)'s lose momentum and cohesion, their ranks thin, and they dissipate into the wind.

But only if you(r side) has the sense God gave a pi$$ant, to act while you still have some considerable political power to bring to bear on the topic, because that's slipping.

You don't have as much time as you think you do... the less rabid amongst you need to have a Come-to-Jesus-Moment and get crackin' on a solution.

You're wasting time.

What part of "Go Pound Sand" did you fail to comprehend ...
There is no need to ask to keep what we already have.

Restating your case or any additional piss poor attempts at intimidation ... Do not support a compromise of any sort.
Your simple inability to understand the basic concepts of negotiations ...
Are what truly amounts to your unfortunate inability to accomplish anything worth the time necessary to consider.


Have no fear though ... I am certain you can convince an appropriately sized flock of sheep to follow you.

.

 

[Kondor3]

That's OK... you don't need more than a couple, anyway...

Could you direct me to the occasion when anyone asked you to dictate and approve what they "need"?

Second Amendment.

You are a member of the militia at-large.... the militia of last resort in defense of the Republic... the citizenry.

The People will merely 'regulate' that 'militia' 'well', as provided in the Second Amendment.

Next batter, please.

Yeah, uh, declaring the subject settled and closed merely because you spewed your half-assed, delusional viewpoint ain't gonna fly, Chuckles. I realize the only way you can ever win an argument is to prevent others from ever getting to speak, but that's really not my problem.

First of all, Stalin Jr., if you want to start handing down pronouncements about what people "need" and "what's required" and who's a member of what, you're gonna have to stage a coup and declare yourself Dictator-For-Life, and you don't REMOTELY have the charisma needed to pull that off.

So your second option is to climb down off your makeshift throne on Shit Mountain, King Turd, and start convincing, cajoling, and begging people to agree with your twaddle, because you're going to have to either amend the Constitution to say what you erroneously think it says now, OR you're going to have to do the usual leftist two-step and get the Supreme Court to pretend it says something different than it does. Unfortunately for your fantasy of Leftist Utopiastan, that's gonna require some personnel changes, which is going to require the people to elect some new representatives.

Rather than prancing around here, pompously issuing directives about "you will accept my vision and fall into line with what I want", you need to get your ass out and start campaigning for what you want. You won't get it through confrontation because, as I keep pointing out, WE are armed and you aren't.

Calm yourself, Princess, and lay off the NRA Bumper Sticker Kickapoo Joy Juice for a while, eh? Interacting with you is rather like dealing with an errant second-grader.

Wake me up when you're capable of a rational dialogue on the subject.

Your surrender is duly noted. Run along and play now, while the grownups finish talking.

There is no surrender at-work here.

The position was outlined and justified during the course of the presentation.

Your resorting to hyperbole and irrational personal attacks are indicative of obstructionism and are merely being given short shrift.

In truth, you present no challenge, and surrender would not be inferred by a reasonable and objective mind, but you lie outside that domain, so feel free to delude yourself.

 

[Kondor3]

...What part of "Go Pound Sand" did you fail to comprehend ... ...

Oh, I understood perfectly, alright, it's just that I chose to ignore it.

...Restating your case or any additional piss poor attempts at intimidation. Do not support a compromise of any sort...

Thank you for your feedback.

...Your simple inability to understand the basic concepts of negotiations ...

To negotiate, you must (a) identify those amongst your opposites most likely to engage in such processes and (b) have the courage to participate.

I merely identify the constituent parts of your opposition, and further identify the segment(s) (1) and (3) most likely to serve as negotiating partners.

Frankly, that does not sound like failure "to understand the basic concepts of negotiations", but that's just me.

...Are what truly amounts to your unfortunate inability to accomplish anything worth the time necessary to consider...

Participating in an open exchange of ideas is always worthwhile. For my part, I show you the future, and how to survive it while preserving the best of the status quo.

...Have no fear though ... I am certain you can convince an appropriately sized flock of sheep to follow you..

That is not my role; rather, I show you what you need to do, to survive the next political cycle or two, once the Dems have control of all branches of government again.

The public's collective memory is usually short lived, but the underlying dynamic is changing, and if you don't recognize and act upon that soon, you're going to lose.

That's not a matter of half-assed and transparent intimidation... that's intelligent speculation from a source not entirely unsympathetic to your cause.

But you go right on thinking otherwise... doesn't faze me in the slightest... and it doesn't alter the sea change already underway in the Court of Public Opinion.

 

[BlackSand]

...What part of "Go Pound Sand" did you fail to comprehend ... ...

Oh, I understood perfectly, alright, it's just that I chose to ignore it.

...Restating your case or any additional piss poor attempts at intimidation. Do not support a compromise of any sort...

Thank you for your feedback.

...Your simple inability to understand the basic concepts of negotiations ...

To negotiate, you must (a) identify those amongst your opposites most likely to engage in such processes and (b) have the courage to participate.

I merely identify the constituent parts of your opposition, and further identify the segment(s) (1) and (3) most likely to serve as negotiating partners.

Frankly, that does not sound like failure "to understand the basic concepts of negotiations", but that's just me.

...Are what truly amounts to your unfortunate inability to accomplish anything worth the time necessary to consider...

Participating in an open exchange of ideas is always worthwhile. For my part, I show you the future, and how to survive it while preserving the best of the status quo.

...Have no fear though ... I am certain you can convince an appropriately sized flock of sheep to follow you..

That is not my role; rather, I show you what you need to do, to survive the next political cycle or two, once the Dems have control of all branches of government again.

The public's collective memory is usually short lived, but the underlying dynamic is changing, and if you don't recognize and act upon that soon, you're going to lose.

That's not a matter of half-assed and transparent intimidation... that's intelligent speculation from a source not entirely unsympathetic to your cause.

But you go right on thinking otherwise... doesn't faze me in the slightest... and it doesn't alter the sea change already underway in the Court of Public Opinion.

It must suck for you being at the mercy of the Court of Public Opinion.
Get back to me when you or the court have anything worthwhile to offer ... Until then Go Pound Sand ...

.

 

[Flash]

I'm not sure I know a blind person that owns a gun. But you seem to think they are causing such a major problem that we need to address the situation. I have asked what that problem is, and you have no response.

Are you afraid that some blind dude is going to pick up an AR-15, sling it over his shoulder with cane in hand and head down to the local school and start shooting it up?

Or are you, once again, looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

Checkmate

If you can't see you not only aren't likely to hit a target ...

You don't know whether the person who just entered your home is a bad guy or your housecleaning lady.

Common sense is your friend

It is a hoot when we see you Libtards talk about common sense.

You wouldn't know common sense if it bit you in the ass.

It is not common sense to gut the Bill of Rights that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to establish.

It is certainly not common sense to live in a country where only the filthy government and the crooks have weapons. In fact it is the epitome of stupidity.

 

[BlackSand]

If you can't see you not only aren't likely to hit a target ...

You don't know whether the person who just entered your home is a bad guy or your housecleaning lady.

Common sense is your friend

It is a hoot when we see you Libtards talk about common sense.

You wouldn't know common sense if it bit you in the ass.

It is not common sense to gut the Bill of Rights that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to establish.

It is certainly not common sense to live in a country where only the filthy government and the crooks have weapons. In fact it is the epitome of stupidity.

You are arguing with someone that by their own admission cannot tell the difference in a "bad guy" and their "cleaning lady".
Not to mention the suspect nature of your cleaning lady showing up at 3:00 in the morning.

.

 

[DrLove]

You are arguing with someone that by their own admission cannot tell the difference in a "bad guy" and their "cleaning lady".
Not to mention the suspect nature of your cleaning lady showing up at 3:00 in the morning.

Yeah that makes sense I guess -

Assuming you're a cleaning lady who wants a blind guy with a gun as their client.

Hey, and since the NRA's paid stooge Trump made it legal for mentally ill folks to own guns ...

Then a blind, crazy client with a gun would be even better!

 

[Flash]

If you can't see you not only aren't likely to hit a target ...

You don't know whether the person who just entered your home is a bad guy or your housecleaning lady.

Common sense is your friend

It is a hoot when we see you Libtards talk about common sense.

You wouldn't know common sense if it bit you in the ass.

It is not common sense to gut the Bill of Rights that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to establish.

It is certainly not common sense to live in a country where only the filthy government and the crooks have weapons. In fact it is the epitome of stupidity.

You are arguing with someone that by their own admission cannot tell the difference in a "bad guy" and their "cleaning lady".
Not to mention the suspect nature of your cleaning lady showing up at 3:00 in the morning.

.

I wasn't arguing with him. Just commenting on his stupidity.

 

[BlackSand]

Yeah that makes sense I guess -

Assuming you're a cleaning lady who wants a blind guy with a gun as their client.

Hey, and since the NRA's paid stooge Trump made it legal for mentally ill folks to own guns ...

Then a blind, crazy client with a gun would be even better!

Are there any other Constitutionally protected rights you would like to deprive the handicapped of while you are at it ...

.

 

[Pop23]

From the link:

"Rogers spent time in jail and went to trial in January. He was granted immunity using the "stand your ground" law."

Seems he wasn't gunning down the house cleaners?

Now, exactly, what is the problem you are trying to solve?

Oh - so since it wasn't his housecleaner - it doesn't count.

Check

But indeed, Florida's Stand Your Ground Law is stupid.

Also from my link:

Four years ago, Rogers was accused of shooting at his cousin.

Judge Galluzzo did order that all ammunition to be destroyed. He said it was too old and dangerous.

From the link " He said it was too old and dangerous."

This has what to do with blindness?

And what exactly do you have against the disabled?

The shooting four years ago, was that before he became blind "due to a construction accident?"

 

[Pop23]

...AND, through all this^^^^^^^^^^

You are still seeking a problem for your solution. Let that sink in.

Oh, I hear you saying that there is no problem.

YOUR problem is that you can no longer sell that idea to vast and growing numbers of Americans who have come to realize the wrongness of that response.

Then you would have a response to the question: What is the problem that you have a solution for?

Damn, you are getting boring.

Thank you for your feedback.

You are welcome.

Now, do you have a problem that your solution cures?

We await your answer

 

[Pop23]

You are arguing with someone that by their own admission cannot tell the difference in a "bad guy" and their "cleaning lady".
Not to mention the suspect nature of your cleaning lady showing up at 3:00 in the morning.

Yeah that makes sense I guess -

Assuming you're a cleaning lady who wants a blind guy with a gun as their client.

Hey, and since the NRA's paid stooge Trump made it legal for mentally ill folks to own guns ...

Then a blind, crazy client with a gun would be even better!

OK, now point out the problem we have with blind crazy guys and random shooting of cleaning ladies.

There must be or only a FUCKING IDIOT would bring it up. Hint: Dat be you Son.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I'm admiring this utterly egregious assumption of yours that YOU are the only person in America with common sense.

Most people with common sense don't want blind people to own guns.

YouGov 2014

Do you think it should be legal or illegal for someone who is blind to purchase a gun?
Legal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
Illegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

But thank you for the admiration.

is that poll the same as the ones used for Clinton during the campaign, saying she had the election in the bag???


You do realize the math doesn't add up.......don't you????

Need glasses? Or a calculator?? Or both????

 

[2aguy]

There are no qualifications in the Constitution to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

It says so right in the Bill of Rights. It says that because it is necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stupid Moon Bats have a hard time understanding what the words "shall not be infringed" means. They think it means that the right can be infringed, the stupid shithheads.

If you have tests and background checks administered by the filthy ass corrupt government before you get a right then it is really not a right, is it?

By your own reasoning, A blind person should be allowed to get a drivers license. Would you want a blind person to own a gun?

Yes they would - Blind and crazy people

Why is America giving gun licences to blind people?

Last February, Trump signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns

And you lie.....it was the ACLU who wanted Trump to protect people from bureaucrats......

Gun Control Laws Should Be Fair

But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.

The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular.

To the contrary, studies show that people with mental disabilities are less likely to commit firearm crimes than to be the victimsof violence by others.

--------------------------
The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns.

Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm admiring this utterly egregious assumption of yours that YOU are the only person in America with common sense.

Most people with common sense don't want blind people to own guns.

YouGov 2014

Do you think it should be legal or illegal for someone who is blind to purchase a gun?
Legal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
Illegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

But thank you for the admiration.

Ah, yes, the ever-popular "we took a poll, and never mind how we phrased the question, you don't need to know that, just accept our conclusion!" argument.

What people picture when they're asked polling questions and what they're ACTUALLY prepared to accept into law are two very different things. I'm sure if you polled the same people and asked them if they thought blind people in general were stupid and careless about safety, they'd be shocked and outraged at the very notion.

I myself am willing to assume that, on an individual basis, the vast majority of people are moderately rational and sane, and that having a disability does not automatically change that. I'm afraid my mind is too complex to accept the simplistic, bigoted nonsense of identity politics.

 

[2aguy]

You are arguing with someone that by their own admission cannot tell the difference in a "bad guy" and their "cleaning lady".
Not to mention the suspect nature of your cleaning lady showing up at 3:00 in the morning.

Yeah that makes sense I guess -

Assuming you're a cleaning lady who wants a blind guy with a gun as their client.

Hey, and since the NRA's paid stooge Trump made it legal for mentally ill folks to own guns ...

Then a blind, crazy client with a gun would be even better!

You mean the ACLU who fought to keep asshats like you from stripping Rights from Americans ....

Gun Control Laws Should Be Fair

But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.

The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular.

To the contrary, studies show that people with mental disabilities are less likely to commit firearm crimes than to be the victimsof violence by others.

--------------------------
The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns.

Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Could you direct me to the occasion when anyone asked you to dictate and approve what they "need"?

Second Amendment.

You are a member of the militia at-large.... the militia of last resort in defense of the Republic... the citizenry.

The People will merely 'regulate' that 'militia' 'well', as provided in the Second Amendment.

Next batter, please.

Yeah, uh, declaring the subject settled and closed merely because you spewed your half-assed, delusional viewpoint ain't gonna fly, Chuckles. I realize the only way you can ever win an argument is to prevent others from ever getting to speak, but that's really not my problem.

First of all, Stalin Jr., if you want to start handing down pronouncements about what people "need" and "what's required" and who's a member of what, you're gonna have to stage a coup and declare yourself Dictator-For-Life, and you don't REMOTELY have the charisma needed to pull that off.

So your second option is to climb down off your makeshift throne on Shit Mountain, King Turd, and start convincing, cajoling, and begging people to agree with your twaddle, because you're going to have to either amend the Constitution to say what you erroneously think it says now, OR you're going to have to do the usual leftist two-step and get the Supreme Court to pretend it says something different than it does. Unfortunately for your fantasy of Leftist Utopiastan, that's gonna require some personnel changes, which is going to require the people to elect some new representatives.

Rather than prancing around here, pompously issuing directives about "you will accept my vision and fall into line with what I want", you need to get your ass out and start campaigning for what you want. You won't get it through confrontation because, as I keep pointing out, WE are armed and you aren't.

Calm yourself, Princess, and lay off the NRA Bumper Sticker Kickapoo Joy Juice for a while, eh? Interacting with you is rather like dealing with an errant second-grader.

Wake me up when you're capable of a rational dialogue on the subject.

Your surrender is duly noted. Run along and play now, while the grownups finish talking.

There is no surrender at-work here.

The position was outlined and justified during the course of the presentation.

Your resorting to hyperbole and irrational personal attacks are indicative of obstructionism and are merely being given short shrift.

In truth, you present no challenge, and surrender would not be inferred by a reasonable and objective mind, but you lie outside that domain, so feel free to delude yourself.

Uh huh. You just go right on telling yourself that you're presenting reasoned arguments and getting cruelly unwarranted "personal attacks" in return, what a shock.

Meanwhile, there's not a person here who can't see that you're just a child throwing a tantrum because the world refuses the rearrange itself to suit you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are arguing with someone that by their own admission cannot tell the difference in a "bad guy" and their "cleaning lady".
Not to mention the suspect nature of your cleaning lady showing up at 3:00 in the morning.

Yeah that makes sense I guess -

Assuming you're a cleaning lady who wants a blind guy with a gun as their client.

Hey, and since the NRA's paid stooge Trump made it legal for mentally ill folks to own guns ...

Then a blind, crazy client with a gun would be even better!

"Oh, hey, don't anyone forget the Big Lie I'm peddling in every single post! I sure wouldn't want anyone to think I ever notice the 61,000 times it's been shown to be an enormous pile of bullshit! BIG LIE, folks! Right here! Please, please, please believe it!"

Is there anything you can possibly do to label yourself MORE of a lying, meaningless sack of dog shit? Oh, wait, you could change your name to Kondor!