The Right To Bear Arms

[Daryl Hunt]

I essentially see two vocal camps in here. The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it. We'll call the "Nothing". Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".

The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone. This is really a very small representative group. They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents. True to some extent. But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens. And Accidents will happen with or without guns. Not going to happen in my lifetime.

Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives. Not just in Guns but everything. More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives. Well, not quite out of their lives. They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US. They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist. So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned. Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.

I am like MOST people. We believe in common sense regulations on everything. Here are some of the arguments:

Common Sense: Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
Uncommon Response: NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!

Common sense: We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
Uncommon response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol. It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
We get two uncommon responses on this one:
OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!

Common sense: Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License. Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was. During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way. He called them Assault Rifles. It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns. It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!

There is a definite pattern here. The Alls and the Nothings. It becomes All or nothing. And common sense is completely removed from the equation. For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above. They asking for those three. Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans. I also added the fourth. These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting; The one in Vegas, from occurring. Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening. The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.

Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it. That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries. The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.

I support the School Children and their Parents. I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings. It's called Common Sense. Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.

If you read a single one of my posts, you'd see that I don't support banning guns at all.

So this thing you're doing, where you try and pigeon-hole people into two camps to oversimplify the debate, is exactly the kind of binary thinking that causes division and prevents compromise.

The Truth hurts, don't it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I essentially see two vocal camps in here. The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it. We'll call the "Nothing". Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".

The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone. This is really a very small representative group. They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents. True to some extent. But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens. And Accidents will happen with or without guns. Not going to happen in my lifetime.

Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives. Not just in Guns but everything. More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives. Well, not quite out of their lives. They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US. They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist. So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned. Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.

I am like MOST people. We believe in common sense regulations on everything. Here are some of the arguments:

Common Sense: Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
Uncommon Response: NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!

Common sense: We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
Uncommon response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol. It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
We get two uncommon responses on this one:
OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!

Common sense: Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License. Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was. During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way. He called them Assault Rifles. It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns. It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!

There is a definite pattern here. The Alls and the Nothings. It becomes All or nothing. And common sense is completely removed from the equation. For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above. They asking for those three. Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans. I also added the fourth. These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting; The one in Vegas, from occurring. Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening. The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.

Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it. That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries. The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.

I support the School Children and their Parents. I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings. It's called Common Sense. Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.

I essentially see that you're too busy listening to the voices in your head to hear what actual people are saying to you.

None of the 2nd Amendment supporters you've been talking to are "no regulation on anything, at all, any time". Neither is the NRA, that ultimate mega-bogeyman of the left. Background checks to make certain people are actually allowed to own guns are okay, so long as you're not trying to pair them with utterly unnecessary and pointless waiting periods. No gun ownership for violently unstable mental patients? Okay, as long as you're willing to respect their 5th Amendment rights to due process in determining that they're violent and unstable (might also be a good time to get them some treatment, if you can fight your way past all the ACLU lawyers. Just sayin').

These sound like perfectly reasonable points of compromise where we could meet and agree to me. Unfortunately, they sound like "No regulations! We want dead children! Aaaaauuuugh!!!" to you, which is why nothing meaningful is ever going to get done regarding gun violence.

 

[Ame®icano]

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?

Depends. Whose pool was it?

Why does it matter? Pool manufacturers are responsible.

 

[Papageorgio]

what do I need a gun for? many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights

Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.

Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

 

[Ame®icano]

I don't care in what you believe, soyboy.

Well, the only problem is that you require me to believe you in order for the rest of your argument to have validity. Why the hell should I believe you?

Nope, I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. My argument is based on your attempt to insult me with your idiocy that I fantasize about being a hero.

If you insist, the only fantasy I have could come up with now is that you try to brake into my home wearing the French maid costume. That'll make my day and possibly great video I could post on LiveLeak.

 

[Papageorgio]

what do I need a gun for? many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights

Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.

Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

Since 1980, deaths from cars have been cut in half. That was accomplished solely because of government action.

They started banning cars?

 

[Ame®icano]

what do I need a gun for? many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights

Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.

Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.

Yep, when it comes to guns, we're stuck in 18th century. But if we remove unnecessary gun restrictions, we should get in par with every possible threat, foreign or domestic.

 

[Ame®icano]

what do I need a gun for? many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights

Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.

Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

Since 1980, deaths from cars have been cut in half. That was accomplished solely because of government action.

I didn't know government is making cars. Unless you're thinking about Government Motors.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No one is breaking into anyone's house to steal the pool and then use that pool to go drown someone else.

We're talking about risk and the responsibility of lessening that risk. If a pool owner does not lock the gate to the pool and some kid gets in and drowns, is he any less responsible than the guy whose gun is stolen and used to kill someone?

CARS HAVE TO BE INSURED, GUNS ARE NOT.

The risk is insured with cars. The risk is not insured with guns.

Wrong. Insurance does not insure against risk, it insures against having to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket if you have an accident. What good will insurance do if a gun is stolen and then used in a homicide? It might pay for the gun owner's legal fees but it will not lessen the risk nor will it prevent the crime. You could have a million dollar policy and it won't change a thing except maybe get the victim's family a sizable settlement. The victim will still be dead.

1. CARS REQUIRE INSURANCE

Cars require liability insurance to ensure that, if you are at fault in an accident, the other driver is reimbursed for damages.

2. Car deaths used to be way higher, but then the government passed all these safety rules, laws, regulations and had public campaigns to change behavior and the result of that has been a 50% reduction in the number of deaths from cars.

Car deaths are down because of seatbelts, airbags and other safety features, not insurance. If you veer off the highway at 70 mph hurtling towards a concrete abutment, what goddamn good is insurance going to do you at this point?

3. Fewer people died from cars than guns last year.

Wrong. Motor vehicle fatalities topped 40,000 in 2017 while firearm deaths in 2017 was 15,549 (excluding suicides) according to gunviolencearchive.org.

You're going to have to show me where I said I don't have that responsibility because I never said nor implied any such thing.

That's what you've been arguing this entire time! Jesus fucking Christ. SMH.

No, it is not. I and everybody else here has been arguing that we are not irresponsible simply for owning a gun. That's it.

This whole argument is about how you're not responsible just by virtue of owning a gun. You've been arguing, simultaneously, that you are a "responsible gun owner", yet you don't think you should act responsibly.

When did I say this?

Whether that's running a background check on anyone to whom you're giving your gun, to reporting your gun stolen to the police, to even owning a gun in the first place. In all this time, all you've done is argue that you are responsible just because you say so, while saying you don't think you should act responsibly when it comes to how you manage your firearms.

I haven't said a word about background checks and I told you that I would report it if my gun was stolen. And I never said that I don't think I should act responsibly. This entire paragraph is bullshit.

Fucking pathetic.

I agree, your arguments are pathetic.

"There's no need to establish anything. Any idiot knows that the owner of the gun is responsible for his gun. Not having insurance doesn't change that."

So this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you avoid responsibility. Here you are, literally arguing against your personal responsibility. Yes, responsibility has to be established. Always. You are saying that you don't want responsibility to be established.

Read the second line again dumbass.

"I never said anything about more guns = less gun crime. Don't put words in my mouth."

So wait...so that means guns aren't a deterrent to crime, don't prevent crime, and don't stop crime. So why are you posturing your defense of gun ownership if guns don't reduce crime? What is the point then?

Don't get creative and make your own BS interpretation. Just know that I did not say more guns = less crime.

"No, I am not. That claim was made by no one in this discussion, least of all by me, and I've told you that multiple times now. I'll say it again as plainly as I can so there's no confusion: No one said all gun owners are responsible. If that's not clear enough: Not all gun owners are responsible gun owners. If that's still not clear enough: Some gun owners are irresponsible gun owners."

So what makes someone a "responsible gun owner", then? There doesn't seem to be any standard other than not owning a gun. So since no standard exists, you can't claim that mantle for yourself. All you can do is say you're less negligent a gun owner, but you're still negligent because you're a gun owner.

You're evading the point. No one said all gun owners are responsible.

You're the only one here speaking in terms of absolutes, i.e., all gun owners are irresponsible.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I essentially see two vocal camps in here. The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it. We'll call the "Nothing". Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".

The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone. This is really a very small representative group. They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents. True to some extent. But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens. And Accidents will happen with or without guns. Not going to happen in my lifetime.

Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives. Not just in Guns but everything. More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives. Well, not quite out of their lives. They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US. They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist. So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned. Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.

I am like MOST people. We believe in common sense regulations on everything. Here are some of the arguments:

Common Sense: Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
Uncommon Response: NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!

Common sense: We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
Uncommon response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol. It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
We get two uncommon responses on this one:
OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!

Common sense: Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License. Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was. During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way. He called them Assault Rifles. It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns. It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!

There is a definite pattern here. The Alls and the Nothings. It becomes All or nothing. And common sense is completely removed from the equation. For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above. They asking for those three. Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans. I also added the fourth. These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting; The one in Vegas, from occurring. Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening. The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.

Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it. That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries. The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.

I support the School Children and their Parents. I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings. It's called Common Sense. Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.

I essentially see that you're too busy listening to the voices in your head to hear what actual people are saying to you.

None of the 2nd Amendment supporters you've been talking to are "no regulation on anything, at all, any time". Neither is the NRA, that ultimate mega-bogeyman of the left. Background checks to make certain people are actually allowed to own guns are okay, so long as you're not trying to pair them with utterly unnecessary and pointless waiting periods. No gun ownership for violently unstable mental patients? Okay, as long as you're willing to respect their 5th Amendment rights to due process in determining that they're violent and unstable (might also be a good time to get them some treatment, if you can fight your way past all the ACLU lawyers. Just sayin').

These sound like perfectly reasonable points of compromise where we could meet and agree to me. Unfortunately, they sound like "No regulations! We want dead children! Aaaaauuuugh!!!" to you, which is why nothing meaningful is ever going to get done regarding gun violence.

Yes, these are common sense ideas that would probably stop or highly reduce the body count. But I can see that you are just trying another end run for "OVER MY DEAD BODY" routine. It's not what you say but what you do that counts.

Now I am going to hear from the "OVER MY DEAD BODY" crowd. You don't want to discuss it. You wan to resort to personal insults so that the discussion is ended. Same Same, I go with your actions.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sigh...so this particular survey is run by the DOJ and has been around since 1973. Not sure what "bias" you could even infer from it and I can see you trying to preemptively gaslight it because you don't want to accept the conclusions from it. Which is pretty shitty, dude.

Thanks for the survey. It's still a survey, where numbers can be cooked.

Questions:

Why would anyone who report the crime omit from the police that gun was stolen? Assuming that more crimes will be committed with stolen guns, it's in victim interest to report the theft and notify authorities that he doesn't have the gun anymore.

Why would anyone who did not report that gun was stolen admit to anyone that gun was stolen? What's the point?

Posturing. You keep making this argument that the cops will show up right away, which invalidates your argument that the gun will protect you. So which is it? Do you need the gun because the cops won't be there, or not? And what if one of the thieves is your neighbor?

See, all of this doesn't establish responsibility, it establishes negligence. A degree of negligence, but negligence nonetheless.

It doesn't invalidates anything. I will defend my family and my home regardless of cops showing up. If you don't believe that guns will protect me from intrusion, I hope you have balls to test it out. Have that French maid costume ready.

Is there a risk of having guns stolen? Of course it is. But the real question is, is that risk you're willing to take?

The risk isn't to the criminal, it's to society which will be victimized by the criminal with the gun they stole from you. So you're still selfishly putting others at risk for your own insecurities. That's the act of an irresponsible garbage person.

You assuming the criminal will succeed stealing my guns from me. If I am at home, he definitely wont. If I am not home, criminal has some 5 minutes from the time that alarm sounds off to find the safe, crack it open, get the guns, all that before police shows up. And by knowing my neighbors (and some of the are law enforcement officers, few are hunters, and some of them are just plain nosey), they will definitely get involved even before cops arrive.

Even if in some case your criminal get away with the guns, I am not putting anyone at risk. Criminal is.
Are you putting others at risk if I steal your car and drive around the town 100mph? Nope, I am. Get it? No, really... get it?

You are definitely responsible for the actions of others when you make it possible for them to steal from you to then act against society. If you didn't have a gun, the thief wouldn't steal it and then it wouldn't be used in crimes. You are wholly responsible for your guns getting stolen. 100%. And you're also responsible for what your stolen gun does because you lacked the responsibility to keep it from being stolen. Again, nothing you're saying here establishes any level of "personal responsibility" and it's quite interesting how you see negligence as responsibility.

Nope, I don't. According to you, just having a home is negligent on my part, because I am making it possible for thief to break in. If truth, than I am negligent for having money in the bank, and making it possible for criminals to rob it. If truth, than women is negligent for having a vagina, since she's making it possible for rapist to rape her.

Insurance covers damages, and has nothing to do with crime being committed.

You better check your insurance policy because it's not that simplistic.

Let me know what part is too complicated for you, I'll prepare crayons.

 

[Ame®icano]

" No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility."
Nor is any driver.

Which is why drivers have to be insured.

So when you bring up cars, you make the case for mandatory gun insurance.

Not really. Not so long ago, car insurance wasn't mandatory. The only reason all states but NH has mandatory insurance is because people don't have enough money to cover the damages to others out of their pocket.

Beside, owning a car is not constitutional right, so it can be regulated.

 

[WEATHER53]

I guess I am one of the few who is ambivalent about guns
I grew up with them and hunted ducks and geese and shot up cans. I knew right away what guns could do, how powerful and deadly. I did not like to make live things into dead things so not much of a hunter
I still have the12 gauge and the 22. Don't think I need them but not looking to register, license, pay a fee take a class.........to keep them. Not looking to give them away either. I do not fear the government nor need to firearm protect myself from it but I do view the guns as a potential needed deterrent for criminals.

I simply feel that multiple capacity rapid fire ammo is not necessary. The risk outweighs the reward and the right

We have a problem with this school stuff. No way around it. Problem is how to solve it. I think it took about 50 years to get to this societal maniac display state we are in and gotta bad feeling that doing one thing in one year won't be the solution

 

[Ame®icano]

havig insurance doesn't prevent accidents

According to whom? If you know that your insurance premium will increase if you act irresponsibly, are you more or less likely to act irresponsibly?

Insurance doesn't prevent accidents. Accidents happens.

But you have point here. Those who act irresponsibly will pay higher rates. Even people who act responsibly pay higher rates because of those who act irresponsibly. However, accident could happen to even most responsible people, because accidents happen.

Now tell me, does having insurance prevent car theft? Does thief care if I have insurance or not? Is he going to drive my car more or less responsibly depending on my insurance?

 

[P@triot]

I mostly agree what these kids are saying. We need to listen now.

Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that children - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.

There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.

Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.

 

[P@triot]

If you go to a gunshow,setup a booth and sell guns, you should be considered a dealer at that point and have to follow the laws of the Dealer.

Why? That’s a completely irrational position. Illustrated all the further by your inability to articulate why someone who sets up a freaking table should be considered a “dealer”.

I’ve seen people set up tables at craft shows - but they are not considered corporations. I’ve seen people set up tables at card shows - but they are not car dealers M - F. One can set up a table at any show to sell personal items.

 

[P@triot]

Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society.

The same goes for your 1st Amendment rights. You illustrate your profound ignorance and can influence likewise uneducated people. So you would logically agree that we should revoke your 1st Amendment rights - correct?

 

[P@triot]

As for a person running a gun check on another person, the Dealers can run that background check for them.

I can’t imagine how low one’s IQ must be to make a statement that bizarre. Yes - the dealers can run a background check because they have been specifically set up with the F.B.I. to do so. They register, get an ID, agree to adhere to specific laws around it, etc.

You’re advocating (like an absolute idiot right now) that any one should be able to call the F.B.I. and receive private information about a fellow citizen. I’ll bet stalkers will love that. As will their victims. I’m sure drug dealers and terrorists will fine that useful as well. And serial killers? Wow did you just make their process more efficient.

 

[Ame®icano]

I mostly agree what these kids are saying. We need to listen now.

Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that children - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.

There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.

Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.

You touched the point here.

It's nonsense that we limit drinking age to 21, but we send 18 year old kids to the war.

Now, if they're going to increase age requirement to purchase guns to 21, than military requirement should be no less than 21. And since you mentioned, If you're younger than 21 and you're not responsible enough to have a gun, than you're not responsible enough to vote neither.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I mostly agree what these kids are saying. We need to listen now.

Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that children - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.

There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.

Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.

Those kids have just went though a relationship that only Cops, Firefighters and Military should be subjected to. So they have experience that I hope you never have.

What you are shoging is the "OVER MY DEAD BODY" response. No discussion, no comprimise, nothing. Even Reagan wanted better gun control laws. Was he a bedwetter as well?