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.
I wouldn't agree to a national registration, and it isn't needed. All that is needed is 1) show ID, 2) ID is run in computer 3) ID comes up clean 4) get your gun.
exactly....but of course the anti gunners don't want that.....they want the guns....and if they can they want to punish the gun owners...
That is the end goal for the true believer gun grabbers, yes. The issue is they get to sound reasonable about background checks, and our side looks bad trying to fight them all the time. We need to fight what they are proposing of course, but the discussion has to be changed to reflect what the grabbers actually want.
The first issue is to debate an issue honestly. Claiming you know what gun "grabbers actually want" is both ridiculous, dishonest. and illogical:
The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear. Plato in The Republic described the control of weapons in this way:
- Ridiculous sense there are more guns in America than there are people;
- Dishonest sense only a few extremists actually want to grab guns from sane, sober and honest citizens;
- Illogical in terms of a slippery slope fallacy
" Socrates then concludes that justice may be defined as telling the truth and paying one's debts. But, he says, what if a friend in a reasonable state of mind were to lend you a sword or a knife and later, in a crazed state, should ask for the repayment of the debt? Ought one to remind a friend who is in a crazed state that he is mad, and ought one to return a sword to a crazy person? The answer is plain: No."
Scalia's written decision in Heller is no different than the thinking of Socrates, so for over two thousand years restrictions / infringements on the possession of weapons has been on the radar of all civilized societies.
NYC's rules are proof that the people in power do not want normal citizens to have guns. They want to make it as difficult and as time consuming as possible, not to make sure the wrong people don't get their hands on them, but to discourage law abiding citizens from even trying. If you can't even admit that simple fact, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
And it is a small next step to go from discouragement to prohibition, and from prohibition to confiscation.
Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.
NYC's rules are not proof that those in power do not want normal citizens to have guns!
The theory behind background checks is to be as sure as possible that the perspective gun owner is "normal", not crazed and therefore allowing him or her to own or possess a gun presents a clear danger to others.
I always laugh when I hear the Soviet-Pravda standard excuse ("everybody knows that...."). It occurs most often when the perpetrator knows his statements are false, that he can't defend them, and that people who believe them are in the minority.We all know that rights are limited, even the 2A.
You also can't commit one without a gun.you can't commit a crime with a gun.
You may now excuse yourself from the conversation.[
The first issue is to debate an issue honestly.
Your statement is dishonest.The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear.
The argument is that -some- gun control is unconstitutional.
And, of course, the 2nd IS clear:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
More liberal stupidity.
Hey you stupid liberals, how is it that ANY attempt to regulate voting you IMMEDIATELY scream that the right is trying to disenfranchise voters, BUT now you want to claim that laws like NYC has that make it almost impossible to legally own a gun are in fact not so onerous as to in effect be a gun ban?
You can't have it both fucking ways.
And again, I believe that our founding fathers meant for a state to be able to institute a complete in state ban of all weapons, if that is what they wanted to do.
Enforce current gun laws, more gun laws will not save one life. DumbassMore laws never mean less crime... FactMore laws will not help. DumbassSo called "gun violence" is really a nonissue in this country, more people die from falling out of bed than from mass shootings...
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America
Gun violence is "death at the hands of another"! It is not suicide, accidental or of natural causes. That's obvious to anyone with a brain. So sorry Rustic, you need to join Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road.
You should never call anyone dumb.
So if we de-criminalize bank robbery, people who rob banks won't be counted as having committed a crime,
therefore, less crime.
Good one. How late did you stay up to think of that?
You're deflecting, enforce current "GUN" laws - making new frivolous ones is a waste of time and money… DumbassMore laws never mean less crime... FactMore laws will not help. DumbassSo called "gun violence" is really a nonissue in this country, more people die from falling out of bed than from mass shootings...
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America
Gun violence is "death at the hands of another"! It is not suicide, accidental or of natural causes. That's obvious to anyone with a brain. So sorry Rustic, you need to join Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road.
You should never call anyone dumb.
You don't think a stop sign reduces the number of people who run an intersection?
exactly....but of course the anti gunners don't want that.....they want the guns....and if they can they want to punish the gun owners...
That is the end goal for the true believer gun grabbers, yes. The issue is they get to sound reasonable about background checks, and our side looks bad trying to fight them all the time. We need to fight what they are proposing of course, but the discussion has to be changed to reflect what the grabbers actually want.
The first issue is to debate an issue honestly. Claiming you know what gun "grabbers actually want" is both ridiculous, dishonest. and illogical:
The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear. Plato in The Republic described the control of weapons in this way:
- Ridiculous sense there are more guns in America than there are people;
- Dishonest sense only a few extremists actually want to grab guns from sane, sober and honest citizens;
- Illogical in terms of a slippery slope fallacy
" Socrates then concludes that justice may be defined as telling the truth and paying one's debts. But, he says, what if a friend in a reasonable state of mind were to lend you a sword or a knife and later, in a crazed state, should ask for the repayment of the debt? Ought one to remind a friend who is in a crazed state that he is mad, and ought one to return a sword to a crazy person? The answer is plain: No."
Scalia's written decision in Heller is no different than the thinking of Socrates, so for over two thousand years restrictions / infringements on the possession of weapons has been on the radar of all civilized societies.
NYC's rules are proof that the people in power do not want normal citizens to have guns. They want to make it as difficult and as time consuming as possible, not to make sure the wrong people don't get their hands on them, but to discourage law abiding citizens from even trying. If you can't even admit that simple fact, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
And it is a small next step to go from discouragement to prohibition, and from prohibition to confiscation.
Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.
NYC's rules are not proof that those in power do not want normal citizens to have guns!
The theory behind background checks is to be as sure as possible that the perspective gun owner is "normal", not crazed and therefore allowing him or her to own or possess a gun presents a clear danger to others.
Then what else could be the reason for a 3-6 month wait, a long, drawn out application process, and over $1000 in fees?????
A background check can be done in minutes, as is done in the rest of the country.
Please don't be this dense.
You may now excuse yourself from the conversation.[
The first issue is to debate an issue honestly.
Your statement is dishonest.The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear.
The argument is that -some- gun control is unconstitutional.
And, of course, the 2nd IS clear:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
You cannot seem to post honestly.
- If some gun control is unconstitutional, than some gun control is constitutional, something you've denied repeatedly until now
- The 2nd A., according to Scalia's written decision, is his opinion - four other justices disagreed.
- Gun control as I have written has never been about confiscation, I have argued for:
- Licensing of all gun owners as a right of the States (10th A.)
- Registration of guns with an insurance company (firewall from the State / Federal Gov't)
- Sales of guns and purchasers only to legally licensed persons
- Special licenses for interstate transportation/sales/sporting activities (hunting)
Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.
You may now excuse yourself from the conversation.[
The first issue is to debate an issue honestly.
Your statement is dishonest.The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear.
The argument is that -some- gun control is unconstitutional.
And, of course, the 2nd IS clear:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
You cannot seem to post honestly.
- If some gun control is unconstitutional, than some gun control is constitutional, something you've denied repeatedly until now
- The 2nd A., according to Scalia's written decision, is his opinion - four other justices disagreed.
- Gun control as I have written has never been about confiscation, I have argued for:
- Licensing of all gun owners as a right of the States (10th A.)
- Registration of guns with an insurance company (firewall from the State / Federal Gov't)
- Sales of guns and purchasers only to legally licensed persons
- Special licenses for interstate transportation/sales/sporting activities (hunting)
You are such a stupid fuck
What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?
.
You may now excuse yourself from the conversation.[
The first issue is to debate an issue honestly.
Your statement is dishonest.The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear.
The argument is that -some- gun control is unconstitutional.
And, of course, the 2nd IS clear:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
You cannot seem to post honestly.
- If some gun control is unconstitutional, than some gun control is constitutional, something you've denied repeatedly until now
- The 2nd A., according to Scalia's written decision, is his opinion - four other justices disagreed.
- Gun control as I have written has never been about confiscation, I have argued for:
- Licensing of all gun owners as a right of the States (10th A.)
- Registration of guns with an insurance company (firewall from the State / Federal Gov't)
- Sales of guns and purchasers only to legally licensed persons
- Special licenses for interstate transportation/sales/sporting activities (hunting)
You are such a stupid fuck
What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?
.
FU - I've read you posts, you are another who should never ever call anyone stupid.
Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.
Wrong (as usual).
The first major so-called "gun control" law in this country was the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). It imposed, among other things, huge taxes on every sale or transfer of certain types of guns and accessories.
Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.
The Feds took the unusual step of appealing directly to the Supreme Court, in 1939. The pro bono lawyer couldn't find his client (Miller was found later, dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest), and didn't want to go to the huge amount of work required to prepare a Supreme Court case he probably wouldn't be paid for. So while the government brought in the usual battery of high-powered lawyers to prosecute the case, nobody showed up for the defense. One side of the courtroom was completely empty.
The government took advantage of this windfall, and read several flat lies into the record (the 2nd amendment only applies to military-style weapons, only applies to members of a militia or other military unit, etc.). The Justices, having no one to disprove them, rubber-stamped them into an "opinion" and declared Miller guilty in absentia. This "opinion" is full of twisted and apologetic language such as "In the absence of any evidence showing.....", "We cannot say that...", and "It is not within judicial notice that..." as the Justices tried to point out that they had heard only one side of the case.
Since then, the Govt has put more and more "gun control" laws into place, defending them every time by citing the 1939 miscarriage of justice US v. Miller. It's one of the most obvious examples of a "slippery slope" where, once the gun-rights-haters got a toehold in the realm of unconstitutional gun legislation, proceeded to put in more and more.
Little wrycatch frantically denies that this is happening, though he is unable to back up his assertions (again as usual).
You may now excuse yourself from the conversation.[
The first issue is to debate an issue honestly.
Your statement is dishonest.The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear.
The argument is that -some- gun control is unconstitutional.
And, of course, the 2nd IS clear:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
You cannot seem to post honestly.
- If some gun control is unconstitutional, than some gun control is constitutional, something you've denied repeatedly until now
- The 2nd A., according to Scalia's written decision, is his opinion - four other justices disagreed.
- Gun control as I have written has never been about confiscation, I have argued for:
- Licensing of all gun owners as a right of the States (10th A.)
- Registration of guns with an insurance company (firewall from the State / Federal Gov't)
- Sales of guns and purchasers only to legally licensed persons
- Special licenses for interstate transportation/sales/sporting activities (hunting)
You are such a stupid fuck
What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?
.
FU - I've read you posts, you are another who should never ever call anyone stupid.
quit stonewalling and answer the fucking question
You are such a stupid fuck
What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?
That is the end goal for the true believer gun grabbers, yes. The issue is they get to sound reasonable about background checks, and our side looks bad trying to fight them all the time. We need to fight what they are proposing of course, but the discussion has to be changed to reflect what the grabbers actually want.
The first issue is to debate an issue honestly. Claiming you know what gun "grabbers actually want" is both ridiculous, dishonest. and illogical:
The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear. Plato in The Republic described the control of weapons in this way:
- Ridiculous sense there are more guns in America than there are people;
- Dishonest sense only a few extremists actually want to grab guns from sane, sober and honest citizens;
- Illogical in terms of a slippery slope fallacy
" Socrates then concludes that justice may be defined as telling the truth and paying one's debts. But, he says, what if a friend in a reasonable state of mind were to lend you a sword or a knife and later, in a crazed state, should ask for the repayment of the debt? Ought one to remind a friend who is in a crazed state that he is mad, and ought one to return a sword to a crazy person? The answer is plain: No."
Scalia's written decision in Heller is no different than the thinking of Socrates, so for over two thousand years restrictions / infringements on the possession of weapons has been on the radar of all civilized societies.
NYC's rules are proof that the people in power do not want normal citizens to have guns. They want to make it as difficult and as time consuming as possible, not to make sure the wrong people don't get their hands on them, but to discourage law abiding citizens from even trying. If you can't even admit that simple fact, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
And it is a small next step to go from discouragement to prohibition, and from prohibition to confiscation.
Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.
NYC's rules are not proof that those in power do not want normal citizens to have guns!
The theory behind background checks is to be as sure as possible that the perspective gun owner is "normal", not crazed and therefore allowing him or her to own or possess a gun presents a clear danger to others.
Then what else could be the reason for a 3-6 month wait, a long, drawn out application process, and over $1000 in fees?????
A background check can be done in minutes, as is done in the rest of the country.
Please don't be this dense.
For several years I did background checks on LE candidates, it takes a hell of a lot more time than you might think. Live scan was a great asset, but not every agency has a database nor are reporting out records uniform among different states, agencies, the civil and criminal court systems and the mental health systems.
More liberal stupidity.
Hey you stupid liberals, how is it that ANY attempt to regulate voting you IMMEDIATELY scream that the right is trying to disenfranchise voters, BUT now you want to claim that laws like NYC has that make it almost impossible to legally own a gun are in fact not so onerous as to in effect be a gun ban?
You can't have it both fucking ways.
And again, I believe that our founding fathers meant for a state to be able to institute a complete in state ban of all weapons, if that is what they wanted to do.
Apple and Aardvarks. Votes don't kill people, guns do.
You may now excuse yourself from the conversation.
Your statement is dishonest.
The argument is that -some- gun control is unconstitutional.
And, of course, the 2nd IS clear:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
You cannot seem to post honestly.
- If some gun control is unconstitutional, than some gun control is constitutional, something you've denied repeatedly until now
- The 2nd A., according to Scalia's written decision, is his opinion - four other justices disagreed.
- Gun control as I have written has never been about confiscation, I have argued for:
- Licensing of all gun owners as a right of the States (10th A.)
- Registration of guns with an insurance company (firewall from the State / Federal Gov't)
- Sales of guns and purchasers only to legally licensed persons
- Special licenses for interstate transportation/sales/sporting activities (hunting)
You are such a stupid fuck
What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?
.
FU - I've read you posts, you are another who should never ever call anyone stupid.
quit stonewalling and answer the fucking question
You are such a stupid fuck
What do you gain in exchange for giving up your right to defend your life?
I'm not a coward nor paranoid, so defending my life is about exercise and eating well. I don't feel the need to carry a gun to the grocery store, why do you?
The first issue is to debate an issue honestly. Claiming you know what gun "grabbers actually want" is both ridiculous, dishonest. and illogical:
The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear. Plato in The Republic described the control of weapons in this way:
- Ridiculous sense there are more guns in America than there are people;
- Dishonest sense only a few extremists actually want to grab guns from sane, sober and honest citizens;
- Illogical in terms of a slippery slope fallacy
" Socrates then concludes that justice may be defined as telling the truth and paying one's debts. But, he says, what if a friend in a reasonable state of mind were to lend you a sword or a knife and later, in a crazed state, should ask for the repayment of the debt? Ought one to remind a friend who is in a crazed state that he is mad, and ought one to return a sword to a crazy person? The answer is plain: No."
Scalia's written decision in Heller is no different than the thinking of Socrates, so for over two thousand years restrictions / infringements on the possession of weapons has been on the radar of all civilized societies.
NYC's rules are proof that the people in power do not want normal citizens to have guns. They want to make it as difficult and as time consuming as possible, not to make sure the wrong people don't get their hands on them, but to discourage law abiding citizens from even trying. If you can't even admit that simple fact, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
And it is a small next step to go from discouragement to prohibition, and from prohibition to confiscation.
Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.
NYC's rules are not proof that those in power do not want normal citizens to have guns!
The theory behind background checks is to be as sure as possible that the perspective gun owner is "normal", not crazed and therefore allowing him or her to own or possess a gun presents a clear danger to others.
Then what else could be the reason for a 3-6 month wait, a long, drawn out application process, and over $1000 in fees?????
A background check can be done in minutes, as is done in the rest of the country.
Please don't be this dense.
For several years I did background checks on LE candidates, it takes a hell of a lot more time than you might think. Live scan was a great asset, but not every agency has a database nor are reporting out records uniform among different states, agencies, the civil and criminal court systems and the mental health systems.
I'm not trying to be a Law enforcement officer, I want to own a handgun and keep it in my apartment. Again, why does it take 3-6 months and $1000 for that?
NYC's rules are proof that the people in power do not want normal citizens to have guns. They want to make it as difficult and as time consuming as possible, not to make sure the wrong people don't get their hands on them, but to discourage law abiding citizens from even trying. If you can't even admit that simple fact, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
And it is a small next step to go from discouragement to prohibition, and from prohibition to confiscation.
Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.
NYC's rules are not proof that those in power do not want normal citizens to have guns!
The theory behind background checks is to be as sure as possible that the perspective gun owner is "normal", not crazed and therefore allowing him or her to own or possess a gun presents a clear danger to others.
Then what else could be the reason for a 3-6 month wait, a long, drawn out application process, and over $1000 in fees?????
A background check can be done in minutes, as is done in the rest of the country.
Please don't be this dense.
For several years I did background checks on LE candidates, it takes a hell of a lot more time than you might think. Live scan was a great asset, but not every agency has a database nor are reporting out records uniform among different states, agencies, the civil and criminal court systems and the mental health systems.
I'm not trying to be a Law enforcement officer, I want to own a handgun and keep it in my apartment. Again, why does it take 3-6 months and $1000 for that?
Ask someone who knows and cares.
I think, try it sometime, that the obsessed gun owners so emotionally attached to guns, maybe
BTW, I support sane, sober and honest law abiding citizens right to own a gun for self protection and the protection of their home and property.
- Cowardly
- Paranoid
- Both Cowardly and Paranoid
- Suffer from the Zimmerman Syndrome (a Walter Mitty dream that they and their gun will kill someone and be deemed a hero)
- Profit from the sale of guns
Liars, and M14 is not the only one, want everyone to believe gun control = gun confiscation.
