This one is for the gun grabbers. Explain this.

[iceberg]

gosh. never heard that rebuttal before.

you have no specified right to a lot of things in life but still benefit from them.

And yet you still incorrectly think you have a right to drive a car on publicly owned roads.

where did i say this?

Cut the shit.

You just wrote this

you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

did i say where? but then again if on private land no i don't need a license so that wouldn't work either.

before we start wordsmtihing around, no. the "right" to drive a car, fly in a plane, and may other things also *NOT* specified in the constitution are still rights we share by paying taxes on these services.

if you are *only* going to say the rights spelled out in the constitution are all we have great. we can get literal there as well and pretend that we still live in 1776 and only go by what was said at the time.

wanna go there next?

Words mean things.

Most people know this already.

So no you do not have a right to drive. You do not have the right to do many things you are simply permitted to do them if you meet certain requirements and your ability to to any of those things can be taken away from you at any time for any reason.

so again - shall we use only the constitution as it sits now, and with the environment of 1776, to determine what rights we enjoy today.

yes words mean something but don't expect me to get literal when it suits you then vague at the same time. define your criteria and let's go. if your criteria is "changing to suit the situation" then i don't see a point in playing anymore.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And yet you still incorrectly think you have a right to drive a car on publicly owned roads.

where did i say this?

Cut the shit.

You just wrote this

you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

did i say where? but then again if on private land no i don't need a license so that wouldn't work either.

before we start wordsmtihing around, no. the "right" to drive a car, fly in a plane, and may other things also *NOT* specified in the constitution are still rights we share by paying taxes on these services.

if you are *only* going to say the rights spelled out in the constitution are all we have great. we can get literal there as well and pretend that we still live in 1776 and only go by what was said at the time.

wanna go there next?

Words mean things.

Most people know this already.

So no you do not have a right to drive. You do not have the right to do many things you are simply permitted to do them if you meet certain requirements and your ability to to any of those things can be taken away from you at any time for any reason.

so again - shall we use only the constitution as it sits now, and with the environment of 1776, to determine what rights we enjoy today.

yes words mean something but don't expect me to get literal when it suits you then vague at the same time. define your criteria and let's go. if your criteria is "changing to suit the situation" then i don't see a point in playing anymore.

Any privilege granted to you by a third party that can be taken away, altered or restricted without due process is not a right.

How's that for a working definition?

 

[iceberg]

where did i say this?

Cut the shit.

You just wrote this

you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

did i say where? but then again if on private land no i don't need a license so that wouldn't work either.

before we start wordsmtihing around, no. the "right" to drive a car, fly in a plane, and may other things also *NOT* specified in the constitution are still rights we share by paying taxes on these services.

if you are *only* going to say the rights spelled out in the constitution are all we have great. we can get literal there as well and pretend that we still live in 1776 and only go by what was said at the time.

wanna go there next?

Words mean things.

Most people know this already.

So no you do not have a right to drive. You do not have the right to do many things you are simply permitted to do them if you meet certain requirements and your ability to to any of those things can be taken away from you at any time for any reason.

so again - shall we use only the constitution as it sits now, and with the environment of 1776, to determine what rights we enjoy today.

yes words mean something but don't expect me to get literal when it suits you then vague at the same time. define your criteria and let's go. if your criteria is "changing to suit the situation" then i don't see a point in playing anymore.

Any privilege granted to you by a third party that can be taken away, altered or restricted without due process is not a right.

How's that for a working definition?

and that would be why i put "due process" in every step of what i was doing.

not in the mood to slap words around. if you disagree with what i was thinking, great. free country. you have that right.

and i won't even bother to try and take it away but i'll exercise my own right to go do something else.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia being necessary means the unorganized militia are not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well regulated militia being necessary means the unorganized militia are not.

I am an extremely well regulated militia of one

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia being necessary means the unorganized militia are not.

I am an extremely well regulated militia of one

Doesn't matter. You are not recognized as well regulated by our republican form of Government.

That, dears, is All that matters.

 

[iceberg]

Well regulated militia being necessary means the unorganized militia are not.

I am an extremely well regulated militia of one

i do need to go out and use the guns i have more often. doesn't do me much good to have them if i don't use them enough to be comfortable with them as well.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well regulated militia being necessary means the unorganized militia are not.

I am an extremely well regulated militia of one

Doesn't matter. You are not recognized as well regulated by our republican form of Government.

That, dears, is All that matters.

The militia does not have to be recognized by the government.
Well regulated does not mean government controlled

 

[RWNJ]

Liar !

Seriously , you righties are so disingenuous. Wyo has 5 people per square mile . No one lives there!

Another one who agrees it's not the guns fault. Thanks for playing.

Right . It's the easy access that's the problem. Gun control states still have guns . There's just better vetting that keeps them out of bad guys hands .

Is that so? And what states would you be talking about here?

I believe the toughest gun laws are in. Mass , NY,Cali, conn , Hawaii .

Chicago, New York, and L.A. all have the same gun laws, all have access to out of city guns...and Chicago has a higher gun murder number than both NY and LA combined...it isn't guns...it is law enforcement, and the gang culture in the cities...

We should have an automatic death sentence for any crime committed with a gun. No plea bargains. no endless appeals. Three appeals, and that's it. Then we shoot the bastards. I guarantee that gun crime would all but disappear. And it's not just because of any deterrant effect. It's the simple fact that we would be eliminating the people who commit these crimes.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well regulated militia being necessary means the unorganized militia are not.

They are referring to the standing army. Crack a damn book!!!

Either way, the militia argument is irrelevant. We've been over this a zillion times, and you still keep losing.

"A well oiled asshole, being a necessity for danielpalos to sodomize, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Only well oiled assholes have the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Doesn't matter. You are not recognized as well regulated by our republican form of Government.

That, dears, is All that matters

"A well-balanced diet, being necessary for good health, the right of the people to obtain and eat vegetables shall not be infringed."

Who has the right? The diet or the people?





Do we even give a fuck about the well-balanced diet? It doesn't matter. The substance is the right to vegetables not being infringed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What danielpalos sees when he reads 2A:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the organized militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You aren’t having a very good night ray. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have parents who care. Teachers, coaches, counselors and community program leaders play a tremendous role in the lives of many children. Are you just making this stuff up?

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

like i said - top down changes of things. and how is getting a CHL type permit taking away your right? you can get as many guns as you want, this is just a way to do background checks and if you don't pass, make sure you know why and can work through it.

we can't keep things the way they are and standard MY RIGHT isn't going to keep flying very well in the face of such abuse by people who shouldn't be having guns in the first place. you can either create a better system that still provides said rights and also ensures those utilizing those rights are not a danger to others, as best we can.

like i said - a lot of people bitch, but so few even TRY to offer solutions or a better way. you gonna just bitch at this, or help think of a better way than we have today?

or - are you ok with how things are today?

No , because Holly weird films almost all their shows in DC, LA, NYC, and Chicago where they can solve a crime in 40 minutes because everyone has their handguns registered. It paints a false picture to people as they think gun registration or permits are required everywhere.

There should be no such restrictions as that violates the 2nd Amendment.

Other than that, I like the laws where I live.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

I can check out a book with a library card but that is they know I will return the book. I am not borrowing a gun.

Yes, they tested me to drive when I was 16 and haven't tested me since.

As I said before, I like it the way it is now. Change for change's sake is nonsense.

 

[iceberg]

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

I can check out a book with a library card but that is they know I will return the book. I am not borrowing a gun.

Yes, they tested me to drive when I was 16 and haven't tested me since.

As I said before, I like it the way it is now. Change for change's sake is nonsense.

except that if we keep going the way we are, we may not have a choice in the matter. and if you let your license expire yes, you will be tested again. forgive me that some analogies don't become all encompassing.

like i said, i'm 100% against more laws. we know they do nothing to stop the crime. but i'm not for sitting around waiting for people to get tired of killing each other. this is a potential option, not an end all be all and certainly i've never said WE MUST DO THIS. it's just an idea to try and address what does happen to be a problem, whether you like it or not.

in the end we do need to overhaul the background check system at a minimum. i'd also love to see education become a part of the process but no, i can't force that. no one *should* be able to. but then what?

i miss the times you could carry a shotgun on a rack in the back window of your truck and no one looked twice. something changed along the way and doing nothing is becoming less and less of an option despite many people wanting just that.

 

[RWNJ]

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

I can check out a book with a library card but that is they know I will return the book. I am not borrowing a gun.

Yes, they tested me to drive when I was 16 and haven't tested me since.

As I said before, I like it the way it is now. Change for change's sake is nonsense.

except that if we keep going the way we are, we may not have a choice in the matter. and if you let your license expire yes, you will be tested again. forgive me that some analogies don't become all encompassing.

like i said, i'm 100% against more laws. we know they do nothing to stop the crime. but i'm not for sitting around waiting for people to get tired of killing each other. this is a potential option, not an end all be all and certainly i've never said WE MUST DO THIS. it's just an idea to try and address what does happen to be a problem, whether you like it or not.

in the end we do need to overhaul the background check system at a minimum. i'd also love to see education become a part of the process but no, i can't force that. no one *should* be able to. but then what?

i miss the times you could carry a shotgun on a rack in the back window of your truck and no one looked twice. something changed along the way and doing nothing is becoming less and less of an option despite many people wanting just that.

What we really need is a mandatory death sentence for any crime committed with a gun. No plea bargains. No excuses.

 

[iceberg]

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

I can check out a book with a library card but that is they know I will return the book. I am not borrowing a gun.

Yes, they tested me to drive when I was 16 and haven't tested me since.

As I said before, I like it the way it is now. Change for change's sake is nonsense.

except that if we keep going the way we are, we may not have a choice in the matter. and if you let your license expire yes, you will be tested again. forgive me that some analogies don't become all encompassing.

like i said, i'm 100% against more laws. we know they do nothing to stop the crime. but i'm not for sitting around waiting for people to get tired of killing each other. this is a potential option, not an end all be all and certainly i've never said WE MUST DO THIS. it's just an idea to try and address what does happen to be a problem, whether you like it or not.

in the end we do need to overhaul the background check system at a minimum. i'd also love to see education become a part of the process but no, i can't force that. no one *should* be able to. but then what?

i miss the times you could carry a shotgun on a rack in the back window of your truck and no one looked twice. something changed along the way and doing nothing is becoming less and less of an option despite many people wanting just that.

What we really need is a mandatory death sentence for any crime committed with a gun. No plea bargains. No excuses.

i'm never for mandatory anything. that sounds good until you get caught into a bad situation where you need room to move and give the judges none at all.

 

[Pete7469]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

Far less bed wetting libturds per capita is one of my guesses.

 

[jbander]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

Wha

t I get a kick out of is your using this one example to prove a point , so I'll use one example that is by far more powerful then yours to explain what happens with guns around

 

[jbander]

The right wing itself is by far the biggest threat to the 2nd, with their policy of no regulations on Firearms. That above anything else will get it dumped because people who have brains knows that guns have to be regulated and will get in power and do just that, to shut stupid remarks from the Gun Bubbas.