The killer did not use an AR-15...he used a Sig....

[Fair&Balanced]

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

No....it is the price that must be paid for the freedom of this country.....FRance banned all of those rifles.....and they still had the attacks.......tell us how their completely banning those rifles worked out for them.

I do have a question for you though.

Would you agree that assault weapons should be regulated the same as fully automatic weapons are?

For the most part, yeah. I would submit that the tax needs to be closer to what it's equivalent was in 1934, when the standards were set - $3,500. But, then, I would submit that standard needs to be updated for automoatic weapons, too. you see the important part, right? "...to register your gun with the federal government..." In other words, there is a federal registry of all automatic gun owners. There would also be one for all assault weapon owners. Yeah. I would be okay with those standards.for assault weapons.

Again, that isn't reasonable. Why won't you be reasonable?


If I proposed that you should have to pay a $10K fee to the government in order to be able to own a printing press, would you say that is unreasonable?

Or more to the point, a polling tax, that has already been held to be unconstitutional, so there is already precedent set, THe government can't predicate allowing people to exercise their rights based on the ability to pay.

A fee to recoup the cost of the background check is perhaps reasonable, nothing more is.

 

[Czernobog]

So, why stop at semis? Why shouldn't private citizens be allowed to own fully automatic M16s, or AKs? Why do you draws the line at semi-automatic assault weapons?

Of course they don't......that is the key.....8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines.... 1 is used to kill 49 people...

Pistols murder close to 8,124 people a year...70-80% of them convicted felons....but they kill more people......so eventually they will get around to those....they just know getting the pistols will be harder.....so they get the AR-15s and other rifles...then when they come for the pistols the precedent is already set....1 rifle killed 49 people and we banned them...so pistols kill 8,124 people....so we definitely need to ban them...

That is how the battle will go....

Nope. But the interesting part of your post is "...70-80% of them convicted felons..." Which brings up the next piece of common sense gun regulation that the gun nuts want to lose their shit over - federal instant background checks. This should be mandatory in all 50 states. maybe then we'd get fewer criminals, and nutcakes getting their hands on firearms.

When I go purchase my NEW Century Arms .308win hunting rifle, I will be required to do a background check. You LIBIDIOTS are too stupid to know this. HEY I GOT AN IDEA, GO TRY TO PURCHASE AN AR-15 AT A GUN SHOP AND SEE IF THEY DONT ASK FOR 2 FORMS OF ID AND DO A BACKGROUND CHECK ON YOU. You wont because it goes against your argument.

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

Explains why this just keeps going and going, even when they are shown their stupidity.

Yeah, the part of that that you hope no one notices is "at a gun shop". Would you like me to list for you the number of states that do not require background checks at gun shows, because they are considered "private sales"? I want background checks required on all gun purchases,. Period. Not just the ones at a gun shop.

I actually would like to see that as well, but how wold you POSSIBLY enforce that?

I mean if I sold you a gun, the only way anyone would ever even know is if you used that weapon to commit a crime. And even then you could simply lie about where you got it.

And you are completely ignoring the actual fact that most gun crimes are not committed with an assault weapon. They just aren't.

Well...unfortunately, the first thing that would have to be done is make all private sales illegal. If you do not have a federal sellers license, you don't get to sell a person a gun. And, make it illegal to try to register a gun that has been bought privately. Now, not only can you not legally sell me your gun, but once I have bought it, I can't legally own it, and it will be still registered to you. If I get caught committing a crime with that gun, guess who the cops are gonna come ,looking for? I know...that smacks of telling people what they can do with their private property. Hey. You wanna sell your gun? Okay. You just have to sell it to a dealer. No one is telling you you can't sell your private property; just that you can't sell it to the gang-banger down the street, outa the trunk of your car.

Then require all vendors at gun shows to be licensed, and do background checks.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Dems protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’


“Hey, NRA: This Marine served in Iraq & he says assault rifles should be banned,” the headline reads. “Does that make him a gun-grabbing commie, too?”

A look at tomorrow's front page…
Hey @NRA, Marine says "NO CIVILIAN SHOULD OWN THIS GUN" Civilians have no reason for owning assault weapons pic.twitter.com/1cngdNzvNu

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 15, 2016

In his column, Moulton said Congress, flooded with campaign donations from the National Rifle Association, lacks the courage needed to pass a ban on military-style assault rifles. The Harvard alum, who served four tours of duty in the Iraq War, even compared their civilian ownership to that of rockets and landmines.

“I’m a Marine. I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate the Orlando murders and many other mass shootings in America. I’ve used guns in combat. On more than one occasion, guns have saved my life. But there’s a big difference between a U.S. Marine with a rifle and a civilian with a gun,” Moulton, a Democrat, wrote.


“I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.”

Moulton, along with his colleague Rep. Katherine Clark, protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’ after Speaker Paul Ryan silenced Democratic South Carolina Rep. Jim Cleburne, who asked if the body would consider gun legislation.

‘‘If the LGBT community has taught us anything, it’s that silence is the enemy of progress,” Clark wrote on Facebook. “I refuse to take part in a moment of silence by a Congress that takes part in empty gestures rather than do something—anything—that could actually prevent these horrific acts from happening. We can’t reduce gun violence with silence.’’

Seth Moulton: 'No Civilian Should Own This Gun'

way to go, dumbo Rethuglicans... blood is on your hands until you stand up the NRA!




Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate

April 17, 2013

The national drive for laws that might prevent another mass shooting unraveled under intense pressure from the gun rights lobby, which used regional and cultural differences among senators to prevent new firearms restrictions.


One by one, the Senate blocked or defeated proposals that would ban certain military-style assault rifles and limit the size of ammunition magazines.


But the biggest setback for the White House was the defeat of a measure to expand background checks to most gun sales. The Senate defied polls showing that nine in 10 Americans support the idea, which was designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a visibly angry Obama said as he delivered his response to the nation.

Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate


Orlando Shooting Widens Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Divide



"...his killer was interviewed by the FBI three times and I'm not going to second guess what career law enforcement professionals do everyday to defend our nation. But we need to look carefully at this. Should we have a broader database? You know, someone comes to the attention of FBI not once but three times, does that suggest that local law enforcement needs to know. That people need to be more aware? Do we need to, you know, push the Congress harder to pass a law forbidding anybody on the no fly list from buying a weapon in our country? Something they have refused to do. And should people who express the kind of admiration and allegiance to terrorism be on that list? So I think we're going to have to take a hard look about what more we can do to prevent this kind of lone wolf attack."


Transcript: NPR's Interview With Hillary Clinton

How about we pass a gun control law forbidding Muslims from buying a gun? Yep, if you disagree then the next time a Muslim shoots anyone blood is on your hands Valerie.


LOL You nitwits make this too easy.

 

[Czernobog]

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

No....it is the price that must be paid for the freedom of this country.....FRance banned all of those rifles.....and they still had the attacks.......tell us how their completely banning those rifles worked out for them.

I do have a question for you though.

Would you agree that assault weapons should be regulated the same as fully automatic weapons are?

For the most part, yeah. I would submit that the tax needs to be closer to what it's equivalent was in 1934, when the standards were set - $3,500. But, then, I would submit that standard needs to be updated for automoatic weapons, too. you see the important part, right? "...to register your gun with the federal government..." In other words, there is a federal registry of all automatic gun owners. There would also be one for all assault weapon owners. Yeah. I would be okay with those standards.for assault weapons.

Again, that isn't reasonable. Why won't you be reasonable?


If I proposed that you should have to pay a $10K fee to the government in order to be able to own a printing press, would you say that is unreasonable?

Or more to the point, a polling tax, that has already been held to be unconstitutional, so there is already precedent set, THe government can't predicate allowing people to exercise their rights based on the ability to pay.

A fee to recoup the cost of the background check is perhaps reasonable, nothing more is.

Hey! The federal government set the standard! In 1934, $200 was the equivalent of $3,500 today. If that was considered reasonable in 1934, why isn't it today? And you don't want a tax? Okay. It isn't a tax - it's a licensing fee.

 

[Czernobog]

Dems protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’


“Hey, NRA: This Marine served in Iraq & he says assault rifles should be banned,” the headline reads. “Does that make him a gun-grabbing commie, too?”

A look at tomorrow's front page…
Hey @NRA, Marine says "NO CIVILIAN SHOULD OWN THIS GUN" Civilians have no reason for owning assault weapons pic.twitter.com/1cngdNzvNu

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 15, 2016

In his column, Moulton said Congress, flooded with campaign donations from the National Rifle Association, lacks the courage needed to pass a ban on military-style assault rifles. The Harvard alum, who served four tours of duty in the Iraq War, even compared their civilian ownership to that of rockets and landmines.

“I’m a Marine. I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate the Orlando murders and many other mass shootings in America. I’ve used guns in combat. On more than one occasion, guns have saved my life. But there’s a big difference between a U.S. Marine with a rifle and a civilian with a gun,” Moulton, a Democrat, wrote.


“I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.”

Moulton, along with his colleague Rep. Katherine Clark, protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’ after Speaker Paul Ryan silenced Democratic South Carolina Rep. Jim Cleburne, who asked if the body would consider gun legislation.

‘‘If the LGBT community has taught us anything, it’s that silence is the enemy of progress,” Clark wrote on Facebook. “I refuse to take part in a moment of silence by a Congress that takes part in empty gestures rather than do something—anything—that could actually prevent these horrific acts from happening. We can’t reduce gun violence with silence.’’

Seth Moulton: 'No Civilian Should Own This Gun'

way to go, dumbo Rethuglicans... blood is on your hands until you stand up the NRA!




Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate

April 17, 2013

The national drive for laws that might prevent another mass shooting unraveled under intense pressure from the gun rights lobby, which used regional and cultural differences among senators to prevent new firearms restrictions.


One by one, the Senate blocked or defeated proposals that would ban certain military-style assault rifles and limit the size of ammunition magazines.


But the biggest setback for the White House was the defeat of a measure to expand background checks to most gun sales. The Senate defied polls showing that nine in 10 Americans support the idea, which was designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a visibly angry Obama said as he delivered his response to the nation.

Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate


Orlando Shooting Widens Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Divide



"...his killer was interviewed by the FBI three times and I'm not going to second guess what career law enforcement professionals do everyday to defend our nation. But we need to look carefully at this. Should we have a broader database? You know, someone comes to the attention of FBI not once but three times, does that suggest that local law enforcement needs to know. That people need to be more aware? Do we need to, you know, push the Congress harder to pass a law forbidding anybody on the no fly list from buying a weapon in our country? Something they have refused to do. And should people who express the kind of admiration and allegiance to terrorism be on that list? So I think we're going to have to take a hard look about what more we can do to prevent this kind of lone wolf attack."


Transcript: NPR's Interview With Hillary Clinton

How about we pass a gun control law forbidding Muslims from buying a gun? Yep, if you disagree then the next time a Muslim shoots anyone blood is on your hands Valerie.


LOL You nitwits make this too easy.

So, the laws we are supporting are bigoted? How?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Of course they don't......that is the key.....8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines.... 1 is used to kill 49 people...

Pistols murder close to 8,124 people a year...70-80% of them convicted felons....but they kill more people......so eventually they will get around to those....they just know getting the pistols will be harder.....so they get the AR-15s and other rifles...then when they come for the pistols the precedent is already set....1 rifle killed 49 people and we banned them...so pistols kill 8,124 people....so we definitely need to ban them...

That is how the battle will go....

Nope. But the interesting part of your post is "...70-80% of them convicted felons..." Which brings up the next piece of common sense gun regulation that the gun nuts want to lose their shit over - federal instant background checks. This should be mandatory in all 50 states. maybe then we'd get fewer criminals, and nutcakes getting their hands on firearms.

When I go purchase my NEW Century Arms .308win hunting rifle, I will be required to do a background check. You LIBIDIOTS are too stupid to know this. HEY I GOT AN IDEA, GO TRY TO PURCHASE AN AR-15 AT A GUN SHOP AND SEE IF THEY DONT ASK FOR 2 FORMS OF ID AND DO A BACKGROUND CHECK ON YOU. You wont because it goes against your argument.

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

Explains why this just keeps going and going, even when they are shown their stupidity.

Yeah, the part of that that you hope no one notices is "at a gun shop". Would you like me to list for you the number of states that do not require background checks at gun shows, because they are considered "private sales"? I want background checks required on all gun purchases,. Period. Not just the ones at a gun shop.

I actually would like to see that as well, but how wold you POSSIBLY enforce that?

I mean if I sold you a gun, the only way anyone would ever even know is if you used that weapon to commit a crime. And even then you could simply lie about where you got it.

And you are completely ignoring the actual fact that most gun crimes are not committed with an assault weapon. They just aren't.

Well...unfortunately, the first thing that would have to be done is make all private sales illegal. If you do not have a federal sellers license, you don't get to sell a person a gun. And, make it illegal to try to register a gun that has been bought privately. Now, not only can you not legally sell me your gun, but once I have bought it, I can't legally own it, and it will be still registered to you. If I get caught committing a crime with that gun, guess who the cops are gonna come ,looking for? I know...that smacks of telling people what they can do with their private property. Hey. You wanna sell your gun? Okay. You just have to sell it to a dealer. No one is telling you you can't sell your private property; just that you can't sell it to the gang-banger down the street, outa the trunk of your car.

Then require all vendors at gun shows to be licensed, and do background checks.

Are you insane? Register a gun? Full autos have to be registered, nothing else does. The vast majority of my weapons are not registered with the government, and will not be.

I don't even think they should be able to register fully automatic weapons. If you pass the necessary background check to obtain said weapons, it's none of the government's business what you own.

 

[OldLady]

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

I have been honest about it, somewhere on this board, prior to the Orlando shooting I pointedly posted that I didn't care if 50 Million Americans killed 50 Million other Americans with guns this year, that doesn't change the fact that I have a right to own a gun. or guns. My rights aren't predicated on what others have done.

Your efforts should be aimed at preventing those who would harm and or kill other humans for no reason from obtaining guns, rather than from preventing EVERYONE from getting guns.

quick comparison.

Should we keep Muslims out of this country because they are Muslims

or

should we attempt to prevent Muslims who would harm Americans from entering this country

which is more reasonable?

The sheer selfishness and lack of concern for your country as a whole is revolting.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

No....it is the price that must be paid for the freedom of this country.....FRance banned all of those rifles.....and they still had the attacks.......tell us how their completely banning those rifles worked out for them.

I do have a question for you though.

Would you agree that assault weapons should be regulated the same as fully automatic weapons are?

For the most part, yeah. I would submit that the tax needs to be closer to what it's equivalent was in 1934, when the standards were set - $3,500. But, then, I would submit that standard needs to be updated for automoatic weapons, too. you see the important part, right? "...to register your gun with the federal government..." In other words, there is a federal registry of all automatic gun owners. There would also be one for all assault weapon owners. Yeah. I would be okay with those standards.for assault weapons.

Again, that isn't reasonable. Why won't you be reasonable?


If I proposed that you should have to pay a $10K fee to the government in order to be able to own a printing press, would you say that is unreasonable?

Or more to the point, a polling tax, that has already been held to be unconstitutional, so there is already precedent set, THe government can't predicate allowing people to exercise their rights based on the ability to pay.

A fee to recoup the cost of the background check is perhaps reasonable, nothing more is.

Hey! The federal government set the standard! In 1934, $200 was the equivalent of $3,500 today. If that was considered reasonable in 1934, why isn't it today? And you don't want a tax? Okay. It isn't a tax - it's a licensing fee.

Just because it was legal in 1934 doesn't make it reasonable. See, you ARE as loony as the hardcore 2nd Amendment guys, you have ZERO interest in reasonable.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

I have been honest about it, somewhere on this board, prior to the Orlando shooting I pointedly posted that I didn't care if 50 Million Americans killed 50 Million other Americans with guns this year, that doesn't change the fact that I have a right to own a gun. or guns. My rights aren't predicated on what others have done.

Your efforts should be aimed at preventing those who would harm and or kill other humans for no reason from obtaining guns, rather than from preventing EVERYONE from getting guns.

quick comparison.

Should we keep Muslims out of this country because they are Muslims

or

should we attempt to prevent Muslims who would harm Americans from entering this country

which is more reasonable?

The sheer selfishness and lack of concern for your country as a whole is revolting.

What kind of car do you drive?

 

[Czernobog]

No....it is the price that must be paid for the freedom of this country.....FRance banned all of those rifles.....and they still had the attacks.......tell us how their completely banning those rifles worked out for them.

I do have a question for you though.

Would you agree that assault weapons should be regulated the same as fully automatic weapons are?

For the most part, yeah. I would submit that the tax needs to be closer to what it's equivalent was in 1934, when the standards were set - $3,500. But, then, I would submit that standard needs to be updated for automoatic weapons, too. you see the important part, right? "...to register your gun with the federal government..." In other words, there is a federal registry of all automatic gun owners. There would also be one for all assault weapon owners. Yeah. I would be okay with those standards.for assault weapons.

Again, that isn't reasonable. Why won't you be reasonable?


If I proposed that you should have to pay a $10K fee to the government in order to be able to own a printing press, would you say that is unreasonable?

Or more to the point, a polling tax, that has already been held to be unconstitutional, so there is already precedent set, THe government can't predicate allowing people to exercise their rights based on the ability to pay.

A fee to recoup the cost of the background check is perhaps reasonable, nothing more is.

Hey! The federal government set the standard! In 1934, $200 was the equivalent of $3,500 today. If that was considered reasonable in 1934, why isn't it today? And you don't want a tax? Okay. It isn't a tax - it's a licensing fee.

Just because it was legal in 1934 doesn't make it reasonable. See, you ARE as loony as the hardcore 2nd Amendment guys, you have ZERO interest in reasonable.

Because I don't believe that any right is meant to be unfettered, without some reasonable restriction, I'm unreasonable? I'm sorry. You have to be registered to vote. You have to be registered to operate a vehicle. Why is it so unreasonable to expect you to be registered to use a firearm?

See, this is the problem. There is no way to talk about "reasonable", because, when iot comes to gun restriction, you r idea of "reasonable restriction" is none. none at all. So, any form of restriction is called insane, irrational, unreasonabve hate of all guns, and pissing on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I do have a question for you though.

Would you agree that assault weapons should be regulated the same as fully automatic weapons are?

For the most part, yeah. I would submit that the tax needs to be closer to what it's equivalent was in 1934, when the standards were set - $3,500. But, then, I would submit that standard needs to be updated for automoatic weapons, too. you see the important part, right? "...to register your gun with the federal government..." In other words, there is a federal registry of all automatic gun owners. There would also be one for all assault weapon owners. Yeah. I would be okay with those standards.for assault weapons.

Again, that isn't reasonable. Why won't you be reasonable?


If I proposed that you should have to pay a $10K fee to the government in order to be able to own a printing press, would you say that is unreasonable?

Or more to the point, a polling tax, that has already been held to be unconstitutional, so there is already precedent set, THe government can't predicate allowing people to exercise their rights based on the ability to pay.

A fee to recoup the cost of the background check is perhaps reasonable, nothing more is.

Hey! The federal government set the standard! In 1934, $200 was the equivalent of $3,500 today. If that was considered reasonable in 1934, why isn't it today? And you don't want a tax? Okay. It isn't a tax - it's a licensing fee.

Just because it was legal in 1934 doesn't make it reasonable. See, you ARE as loony as the hardcore 2nd Amendment guys, you have ZERO interest in reasonable.

Because I don't believe that any right is meant to be unfettered, without some reasonable restriction, I'm unreasonable? I'm sorry. You have to be registered to vote. You have to be registered to operate a vewhicle. Why is it so unreasonable to expect you to be registered to use a firearm?

AHA

I'm fine with registering to OWN a firearm, I'm not fine with registering which firearms I own.

Reasonable is saying "you have to pass a background check and carry your little card around with you if you want to own semi or fully automatic weapons" but we neither know nor care what weapons you own once you pass that background check

Unreasonable is " you don't NEED a semi automatic weapon so hand them over" which you have stated you would support

Unreasonable is "we're going to create a master list of who owns what weapons" which you have also supported.


Only a fucking mad man would oppose background checks, and while I would like to see sellers voluntarily support private sell background checks , mandating them is unreasonable, not to mention unenforceable.

In short, yes you are unreasonable on the issue of gun laws.

 

[Czernobog]

For the most part, yeah. I would submit that the tax needs to be closer to what it's equivalent was in 1934, when the standards were set - $3,500. But, then, I would submit that standard needs to be updated for automoatic weapons, too. you see the important part, right? "...to register your gun with the federal government..." In other words, there is a federal registry of all automatic gun owners. There would also be one for all assault weapon owners. Yeah. I would be okay with those standards.for assault weapons.

Again, that isn't reasonable. Why won't you be reasonable?


If I proposed that you should have to pay a $10K fee to the government in order to be able to own a printing press, would you say that is unreasonable?

Or more to the point, a polling tax, that has already been held to be unconstitutional, so there is already precedent set, THe government can't predicate allowing people to exercise their rights based on the ability to pay.

A fee to recoup the cost of the background check is perhaps reasonable, nothing more is.

Hey! The federal government set the standard! In 1934, $200 was the equivalent of $3,500 today. If that was considered reasonable in 1934, why isn't it today? And you don't want a tax? Okay. It isn't a tax - it's a licensing fee.

Just because it was legal in 1934 doesn't make it reasonable. See, you ARE as loony as the hardcore 2nd Amendment guys, you have ZERO interest in reasonable.

Because I don't believe that any right is meant to be unfettered, without some reasonable restriction, I'm unreasonable? I'm sorry. You have to be registered to vote. You have to be registered to operate a vewhicle. Why is it so unreasonable to expect you to be registered to use a firearm?

AHA

I'm fine with registering to OWN a firearm, I'm not fine with registering which firearms I own.

Reasonable is saying "you have to pass a background check and carry your little card around with you if you want to own semi or fully automatic weapons" but we neither know nor care what weapons you own once you pass that background check

Unreasonable is " you don't NEED a semi automatic weapon so hand them over" which you have stated you would support

Unreasonable is "we're going to create a master list of who owns what weapons" which you have also supported.


Only a fucking mad man would oppose background checks, and while I would like to see sellers voluntarily support private sell background checks , mandating them is unreasonable, not to mention unenforceable.

In short, yes you are unreasonable on the issue of gun laws.

Nope. Not willing to move on this one. You have no problem with the government having a database of which vehicles you operate. Why do you want to hide what guns you use? In short, any reasonable restrictions on your gun ownership you view as unreasonable.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Again, that isn't reasonable. Why won't you be reasonable?


If I proposed that you should have to pay a $10K fee to the government in order to be able to own a printing press, would you say that is unreasonable?

Or more to the point, a polling tax, that has already been held to be unconstitutional, so there is already precedent set, THe government can't predicate allowing people to exercise their rights based on the ability to pay.

A fee to recoup the cost of the background check is perhaps reasonable, nothing more is.

Hey! The federal government set the standard! In 1934, $200 was the equivalent of $3,500 today. If that was considered reasonable in 1934, why isn't it today? And you don't want a tax? Okay. It isn't a tax - it's a licensing fee.

Just because it was legal in 1934 doesn't make it reasonable. See, you ARE as loony as the hardcore 2nd Amendment guys, you have ZERO interest in reasonable.

Because I don't believe that any right is meant to be unfettered, without some reasonable restriction, I'm unreasonable? I'm sorry. You have to be registered to vote. You have to be registered to operate a vewhicle. Why is it so unreasonable to expect you to be registered to use a firearm?

AHA

I'm fine with registering to OWN a firearm, I'm not fine with registering which firearms I own.

Reasonable is saying "you have to pass a background check and carry your little card around with you if you want to own semi or fully automatic weapons" but we neither know nor care what weapons you own once you pass that background check

Unreasonable is " you don't NEED a semi automatic weapon so hand them over" which you have stated you would support

Unreasonable is "we're going to create a master list of who owns what weapons" which you have also supported.


Only a fucking mad man would oppose background checks, and while I would like to see sellers voluntarily support private sell background checks , mandating them is unreasonable, not to mention unenforceable.

In short, yes you are unreasonable on the issue of gun laws.

Nope. Not willing to move on this one. You have no problem with the government having a database of which vehicles you operate. Why do you want to hide what guns you use? In short, any reasonable restrictions on your gun ownership you view as unreasonable.

A) car ownership isn't an enumerated right
B) There are not a bunch of loons out there talking about confiscating my cars

Damn right I want to hide what guns I own , loons like you who want to confiscate them prove my reasoning is sound.

 

[westwall]

An "assault weapon" is a fully automatic rifle capable of supressive fire. What you attack are civilian rifles.

Until your filthy party decides to attack them as well.

If we allow you to infringe the right of the people, nothing will constrain you.

Your war on civil rights is not a case of what specific words you will ban, or what guns the enslaved peasants may keep. You seek to crush the U.S. Constitution, pure and simple.

If you want to end the Bill of Rights, draft an amendment repealing them. If your filthy party passes laws which infringe the rights there in, then they are criminals. If an anti-Constitution SCOTUS dictates law through fiat, then they too are criminals. The method to end civil rights is the amendment process. Draft your amendments, ye Stalinist snakes.

BUT should you violate the Constitution and point to Judges as above it, then do not expect a free people to acknowledge the legitimacy of your criminal acts nor acquiesce to enforcement of them.

See, Fair & Balanced? The gun nuts make it impossible to even discuss common sense gun regulations that statistics prove even reasonable gun owners agree with, because they are convinced that "all dem librulds wanna steal all our gunz!!!" even though there is absolutely zero evidence that any rational progressive with any real authority is attempting to do any such thing.

You just advocated forcing me to surrender my assault weapons. Hard to consider you reasonable after that son.

Why? Are you incapable of protecting you, and your family without an assault weapon? You are really going to make that claim? If not then why do you need assault weapons?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I don't have them because I NEED them, obviously no one NEEDS 60 assault weapons . I collect them because I like them, and further as I told Old Lady, I don't have to justify exercising my right.

So, why stop at semis? Why shouldn't private citizens be allowed to own fully automatic M16s, or AKs? Why do you draws the line at semi-automatic assault weapons?

We do. I own several machine guns. Do try and keep up.

 

[westwall]

Again, that isn't reasonable. Why won't you be reasonable?


If I proposed that you should have to pay a $10K fee to the government in order to be able to own a printing press, would you say that is unreasonable?

Or more to the point, a polling tax, that has already been held to be unconstitutional, so there is already precedent set, THe government can't predicate allowing people to exercise their rights based on the ability to pay.

A fee to recoup the cost of the background check is perhaps reasonable, nothing more is.

Hey! The federal government set the standard! In 1934, $200 was the equivalent of $3,500 today. If that was considered reasonable in 1934, why isn't it today? And you don't want a tax? Okay. It isn't a tax - it's a licensing fee.

Just because it was legal in 1934 doesn't make it reasonable. See, you ARE as loony as the hardcore 2nd Amendment guys, you have ZERO interest in reasonable.

Because I don't believe that any right is meant to be unfettered, without some reasonable restriction, I'm unreasonable? I'm sorry. You have to be registered to vote. You have to be registered to operate a vewhicle. Why is it so unreasonable to expect you to be registered to use a firearm?

AHA

I'm fine with registering to OWN a firearm, I'm not fine with registering which firearms I own.

Reasonable is saying "you have to pass a background check and carry your little card around with you if you want to own semi or fully automatic weapons" but we neither know nor care what weapons you own once you pass that background check

Unreasonable is " you don't NEED a semi automatic weapon so hand them over" which you have stated you would support

Unreasonable is "we're going to create a master list of who owns what weapons" which you have also supported.


Only a fucking mad man would oppose background checks, and while I would like to see sellers voluntarily support private sell background checks , mandating them is unreasonable, not to mention unenforceable.

In short, yes you are unreasonable on the issue of gun laws.

Nope. Not willing to move on this one. You have no problem with the government having a database of which vehicles you operate. Why do you want to hide what guns you use? In short, any reasonable restrictions on your gun ownership you view as unreasonable.

Because driving is a "PRIVILEGE" as our civil masters remind us at every opportunity whereas gun ownership is a RIGHT. Learn the difference.

 

[Czernobog]

Hey! The federal government set the standard! In 1934, $200 was the equivalent of $3,500 today. If that was considered reasonable in 1934, why isn't it today? And you don't want a tax? Okay. It isn't a tax - it's a licensing fee.

Just because it was legal in 1934 doesn't make it reasonable. See, you ARE as loony as the hardcore 2nd Amendment guys, you have ZERO interest in reasonable.

Because I don't believe that any right is meant to be unfettered, without some reasonable restriction, I'm unreasonable? I'm sorry. You have to be registered to vote. You have to be registered to operate a vewhicle. Why is it so unreasonable to expect you to be registered to use a firearm?

AHA

I'm fine with registering to OWN a firearm, I'm not fine with registering which firearms I own.

Reasonable is saying "you have to pass a background check and carry your little card around with you if you want to own semi or fully automatic weapons" but we neither know nor care what weapons you own once you pass that background check

Unreasonable is " you don't NEED a semi automatic weapon so hand them over" which you have stated you would support

Unreasonable is "we're going to create a master list of who owns what weapons" which you have also supported.


Only a fucking mad man would oppose background checks, and while I would like to see sellers voluntarily support private sell background checks , mandating them is unreasonable, not to mention unenforceable.

In short, yes you are unreasonable on the issue of gun laws.

Nope. Not willing to move on this one. You have no problem with the government having a database of which vehicles you operate. Why do you want to hide what guns you use? In short, any reasonable restrictions on your gun ownership you view as unreasonable.

A) car ownership isn't an enumerated right
B) There are not a bunch of loons out there talking about confiscating my cars

Damn right I want to hide what guns I own , loons like you who want to confiscate them prove my reasoning is sound.

On the other hand, there aren't a lot of loons out there using their cars to kill American citizens to make an ideological point. Tell you what, when you can stop that, I'll stop advocating restriction to assault weapons.

But, you see, as long as they are legally purchased, and registered, I don't want to confiscate anything - at least as long as you don't use it to commit a crime. So, there you go. I don't want to confiscate, just properly licence - with the fees that go along with that - and register.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[westwall]

This has been argued many times over. The Founders mistrusted a standing army due to well known history of it's abuses. We are seeing how the Military Industrial Complex is doing that same thing today. The Founders ensured that the PEOPLE would have the same weaponry as any standing army so that the PEOPLE would be able to fight a tyrannical government on an equal footing. This is well documented no matter how hard you try and parse its meaning.

EVERY publication the Founders issued is clear on the meaning, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Your interpretation is factually, historically, and philosophically WRONG.

no, yours is...

Cute, juvenile response. But the fact remains, if you were indeed correct the guns would have been confiscated decades ago. The fact that they haven't been shows your position to be the false one.

Thanks for playing....

 

[Uncensored2008]

On the other hand, there aren't a lot of loons out there using their cars to kill American citizens to make an ideological point. Tell you what, when you can stop that, I'll stop advocating restriction to assault weapons.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Wait Comrade, so you are making the claim that MORE homicides are committed each year by (bullshit leftist term) "assault rifles" than are by cars?

That's your claim?

 

[Czernobog]

On the other hand, there aren't a lot of loons out there using their cars to kill American citizens to make an ideological point. Tell you what, when you can stop that, I'll stop advocating restriction to assault weapons.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Wait Comrade, so you are making the claim that MORE homicides are committed each year by (bullshit leftist term) "assault rifles" then are by cars?

That's your claim?

I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars. I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[westwall]

On the other hand, there aren't a lot of loons out there using their cars to kill American citizens to make an ideological point. Tell you what, when you can stop that, I'll stop advocating restriction to assault weapons.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Wait Comrade, so you are making the claim that MORE homicides are committed each year by (bullshit leftist term) "assault rifles" then are by cars?

That's your claim?

I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars. I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?