Simple solutions to school shootings

[Taichiliberal]

it's BULLSHIT. If there is something that is PURPOSEFULLY written in to a law, it's not a loophole. end of the fucking story. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

Yeah, you do talk a lot of bullshit....you seem to have a disconnect with logic and facts when they don't jibe with your belief system, and create your own little fantasy world. Fortunately, the rest of the rational world pays little if any attention to the likes of you. Here stupid, learn something:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/loophole

That aside, you STILL cannot logically or factually fault the OP proposals. Not surprising.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Lol... My wife didn’t own any guns to add to the collection. Her dowry consisted of a set of nice chef’s knives, an old Black and Decker drill and a step ladder.

Mine didn't either at first. Now she has over a dozen.

 

[CFM]

Yeah, that is a loop hole. No background checks and they walk with a weapon if they have the money. It is a way to sell more while checking less.

It's called following the law as it is written and it's quite clear. A loophole would be getting around it by doing things because the law is vague. You simply don't like the law. You don't like that people own guns. Yet, you do nothing but run your dick sucker although you've been provided a way to try and take what you say people shouldn't own.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Lol... My wife didn’t own any guns to add to the collection. Her dowry consisted of a set of nice chef’s knives, an old Black and Decker drill and a step ladder.

you married her for the step ladder, didn't you.....

 

[CFM]

Yeah, you do talk a lot of bullshit....you seem to have a disconnect with logic and facts when they don't jibe with your belief system, and create your own little fantasy world. Fortunately, the rest of the rational world pays little if any attention to the likes of you. Here stupid, learn something:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/loophole

That aside, you STILL cannot logically or factually fault the OP proposals. Not surprising.

Oh, you're one of those assholes that thinks when he says something it's automatically fact because he said it.

I have FOUR of what you want banned. If you think they should be banned, when are you going to come and try to take them. You won't. Not surprised.

 

[Superfreak]

1) learn to read carefully and comprehensively, as the terminology did NOT originate with the "media"....despite your insisting to the contrary (of which you cannot logically or factually prove.
2)We charge people to own a gun (it's called a sale). Licenses for CC and CCW cost,as well as gun ownership licenses in some states. The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms in order to form a militia , and your head would explode if you honestly researched the requirements for ownership and storage of said weapons. Outside of a militia, you do NOT have the right to military grade weapons....just weapons in general. The rest of your questions are just straw man stupidity.

1) Take your own advice. Yes, it did. The term assault rifle, which describes a rifle that goes from semi to full auto with a selector switch, was morphed by the media into 'assault weapon'. The media made it up.
2) A gun sale is a one time thing. Not an ongoing charge every year. Again moron... an AR15 is not 'military grade'. It is not a straw man to ask if you think only the wealthy should be able to own guns. It is the very same argument used by YOU when someone brings up the need to show an ID to vote. You say it disenfranchise the poor. Are you now suggesting it doesn't?

 

[Taichiliberal]

1) Take your own advice. Yes, it did. The term assault rifle, which describes a rifle that goes from semi to full auto with a selector switch, was morphed by the media into 'assault weapon'. The media made it up.
2) A gun sale is a one time thing. Not an ongoing charge every year. Again moron... an AR15 is not 'military grade'. It is not a straw man to ask if you think only the wealthy should be able to own guns. It is the very same argument used by YOU when someone brings up the need to show an ID to vote. You say it disenfranchise the poor. Are you now suggesting it doesn't?

1) NRA flunkies like yourself are not smart enough to realize that trying to split this hair doesn't work...as the legal definitions prove you wrong....as does the actual AWB laws that were passed. No one gives a damn about what you prefer to excerpt and revise....the rest of us deal in logic and fact, as the link I previously provided shows.
2) Not necessarily....as the dealer can sell you a gun, and then you can sell it to someone else, who can then sell it at a gun show, of which that recipient can resell it. And PLEASE get educated as to the original designation for the AR-15, because the BS you NRA flunkies tell each other is just that....BS: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-a-scaletta/ar15s-are-basically-assau_b_10469112.html

 

[Truth Detector]

1) Take your own advice. Yes, it did. The term assault rifle, which describes a rifle that goes from semi to full auto with a selector switch, was morphed by the media into 'assault weapon'. The media made it up.

1) NRA flunkies like yourself are not smart enough to realize that trying to split this hair doesn't work...as the legal definitions prove you wrong....as does the actual AWB laws that were passed. No one gives a damn about what you prefer to excerpt and revise....the rest of us deal in logic and fact, as the link I previously provided shows.

The term assault weapon is misused by dumbfucks like you on the left. The only difference between the LIBERAL version and the LEGAL LIBERAL version are cosmetics. They are not "assault" weapons without selective fire no matter how much you kick and scream otherwise shit-for-brains.

2) A gun sale is a one time thing. Not an ongoing charge every year. Again moron... an AR15 is not 'military grade'. It is not a straw man to ask if you think only the wealthy should be able to own guns. It is the very same argument used by YOU when someone brings up the need to show an ID to vote. You say it disenfranchise the poor. Are you now suggesting it doesn't?

2) Not necessarily....as the dealer can sell you a gun, and then you can sell it to someone else, who can then sell it at a gun show, of which that recipient can resell it. And PLEASE get educated as to the original designation for the AR-15, because the BS you NRA flunkies tell each other is just that....BS: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-a-scaletta/ar15s-are-basically-assau_b_10469112.html

Have you ever been to a gun show? Obviously not or else you wouldn't be making such absurd and false questions.

As for the designation of an AR 15; it is merely a semi-automatic rifle. There is nothing "assault" about it other than a leftist screed and some cosmetic changes.

Please see these semi-autos that the left claims are perfectly okay to sell to the public; they only differ in APPEARANCE. I do wish you had a brain and could be honest.

http://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/rifles/ruger-rifles-mini-14.cfm?cat_id=1238

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/750095319

http://www.guns.com/reviews/remington-model-750-woodsmaster/

http://www.browning.com/products/firearms/rifles/bar.html

 

[Superfreak]

1) NRA flunkies like yourself are not smart enough to realize that trying to split this hair doesn't work...as the legal definitions prove you wrong....as does the actual AWB laws that were passed. No one gives a damn about what you prefer to excerpt and revise....the rest of us deal in logic and fact, as the link I previously provided shows.
2) Not necessarily....as the dealer can sell you a gun, and then you can sell it to someone else, who can then sell it at a gun show, of which that recipient can resell it. And PLEASE get educated as to the original designation for the AR-15, because the BS you NRA flunkies tell each other is just that....BS: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-a-scaletta/ar15s-are-basically-assau_b_10469112.html

1) Oh look, you are using the tired old 'you must be NRA lover' nonsense. It is a clear sign you have lost this argument. It is not splitting hairs. It is the definition of the item. You are trying to pretend definitions don't matter. If the media starts calling a Chevy a Ford, does it make it a Ford?

2) Again... an AR15 is NOT military grade. Just because the AR's of the late 50's and early 60's were, doesn't mean the AR's of today are. Educate yourself.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
1) NRA flunkies like yourself are not smart enough to realize that trying to split this hair doesn't work...as the legal definitions prove you wrong....as does the actual AWB laws that were passed. No one gives a damn about what you prefer to excerpt and revise....the rest of us deal in logic and fact, as the link I previously provided shows.
2) Not necessarily....as the dealer can sell you a gun, and then you can sell it to someone else, who can then sell it at a gun show, of which that recipient can resell it. And PLEASE get educated as to the original designation for the AR-15, because the BS you NRA flunkies tell each other is just that....BS: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly..._10469112.html

1) Oh look, you are using the tired old 'you must be NRA lover' nonsense. It is a clear sign you have lost this argument. It is not splitting hairs. It is the definition of the item. You are trying to pretend definitions don't matter. If the media starts calling a Chevy a Ford, does it make it a Ford?

2) Again... an AR15 is NOT military grade. Just because the AR's of the late 50's and early 60's were, doesn't mean the AR's of today are. Educate yourself.

See folks, when pressed, NRA flunkies and intellectual cowards like Superfreak just ignore FACTS in favor of their selective, revisionist history and viewpoints.

the military, the manufacturers and the retailers all classify the AR-15 (and styles) as an assault rifle. The link I provided points out the sheer stupidity in trying to say otherwise. But if you need further proof:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/us/politics/ar-15-americas-rifle.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15

 

[NOVA]

Yeah, you do talk a lot of bullshit....you seem to have a disconnect with logic and facts when they don't jibe with your belief system, and create your own little fantasy world. Fortunately, the rest of the rational world pays little if any attention to the likes of you. Here stupid, learn something:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/loophole

That aside, you STILL cannot logically or factually fault the OP proposals. Not surprising.

The op is nonsense.....anyone can buy a car....you don't have to drive it, you don't have to take a test, you don't have to register it, you don't have be physically fit, etc.....

The op is absolute crap....and has nothing to do with owning a gun.....

There are already dozens of laws concerning illegal gun sales and the tracking of guns used in a crime, or not....

Some nut hell bent on killing you can do it with a butter knife or a bomb....all you can do is protect yourself any way you can.

 

[Superfreak]

See folks, when pressed, NRA flunkies and intellectual cowards like Superfreak just ignore FACTS in favor of their selective, revisionist history and viewpoints.

the military, the manufacturers and the retailers all classify the AR-15 (and styles) as an assault rifle. The link I provided points out the sheer stupidity in trying to say otherwise. But if you need further proof:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/us/politics/ar-15-americas-rifle.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15

So once again... you LIE...

"The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56×45mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. It was designed to be manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle. "

You note (from the link YOU provided) that the AR15 is the semi-automatic version of the MILITARY rifle which is the M16.

How dishonest are you? Your own link shows you are a fucking idiot. Well done moron.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Yeah, you do talk a lot of bullshit....you seem to have a disconnect with logic and facts when they don't jibe with your belief system, and create your own little fantasy world. Fortunately, the rest of the rational world pays little if any attention to the likes of you. Here stupid, learn something:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/loophole

That aside, you STILL cannot logically or factually fault the OP proposals. Not surprising.

The op is nonsense.....anyone can buy a car....you don't have to drive it, you don't have to take a test, you don't have to register it, you don't have be physically fit, etc.....

The op is absolute crap....and has nothing to do with owning a gun.....

There are already dozens of laws concerning illegal gun sales and the tracking of guns used in a crime, or not....

Some nut hell bent on killing you can do it with a butter knife or a bomb....all you can do is protect yourself any way you can.

- Your 1st sentence is total nonsense....you buy ANY car YOU become responsible for the license and registration from the original owner....THAT IS THE LAW.
- In order to use a car, you have to take a driver's ed course and then a test.....no harm in doing so with guns, being that there are scores of firing ranges who would welcome the business.
- Addition of my proposal is nothing more than a tweak to all the laws on State and Federal books....no harm or big deal to those who truly desire firearms, as it would greatly aid in tracking and detecting illegal sales.
- Your last sentence is true....so why make it easier and more efficient for said nut job to kill you with an assault rifle that can be purchased with little difficulty like Cruz did?

 

[Taichiliberal]

So once again... you LIE...

"The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56×45mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. It was designed to be manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle. "

You note (from the link YOU provided) that the AR15 is the semi-automatic version of the MILITARY rifle which is the M16.

How dishonest are you? Your own link shows you are a fucking idiot. Well done moron.

WTF are you babbling about? Do you even read past what you like? Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers.

Add that to the other link I provided, stupid. No matter how you dance, you just can't get past the fact based conclusion.

 

[NOVA]

- Your 1st sentence is total nonsense....you buy ANY car YOU become responsible for the license and registration from the original owner....THAT IS THE LAW.
- In order to use a car, you have to take a driver's ed course and then a test.....no harm in doing so with guns, being that there are scores of firing ranges who would welcome the business.
- Addition of my proposal is nothing more than a tweak to all the laws on State and Federal books....no harm or big deal to those who truly desire firearms, as it would greatly aid in tracking and detecting illegal sales.
- Your last sentence is true....so why make it easier and more efficient for said nut job to kill you with an assault rifle that can be purchased with little difficulty like Cruz did?

....most vehicles whose use is limited to private property, are not always required to be registered.
and you can drive all over your own property without insurance....
There is no requirement that you have a driver's license to own or purchase a vehicle.

Like I said, the op is nonsense...anyone can buy a car....you don't have to drive it, you don't have to take a test, you don't have to register it, you don't have be physically fit, etc.....

so do you really want guns laws to mimic car laws ?

 

[volsrock]

Okay, listen up NRA flunkies and republican/conservative wonks. To prevent shootings like what recently happened in Florida, you do the following:

1. Reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban. Had this been in place, Cruz would NOT have had an AR-15 in his possession.

2. Treat ALL weapons like an automobile. This means that they have to be licensed and registered, and the owner has to pass a written and physical competency test. This will severely cut down on the trafficking of illegal gun sales and greatly assist in the tracking of guns used in a crime.

Got that?

driving is a privilege not a right

Got that

 

[volsrock]

Okay, listen up NRA flunkies and republican/conservative wonks. To prevent shootings like what recently happened in Florida, you do the following:

1. Reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban. Had this been in place, Cruz would NOT have had an AR-15 in his possession.

2. Treat ALL weapons like an automobile. This means that they have to be licensed and registered, and the owner has to pass a written and physical competency test. This will severely cut down on the trafficking of illegal gun sales and greatly assist in the tracking of guns used in a crime.

Got that?

He could have killed more with a big truck, timed it right when a big crowd was present like at a ball game etc

Got that?

 

[Superfreak]

WTF are you babbling about? Do you even read past what you like? Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers.

Add that to the other link I provided, stupid. No matter how you dance, you just can't get past the fact based conclusion.

Moron... I am showing you that you are WRONG. They are not MILITARY use. Even law enforcement aren't issued M16's. They also use the NON MILITARY AR15 Semiauto. You fucking retard.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
- Your 1st sentence is total nonsense....you buy ANY car YOU become responsible for the license and registration from the original owner....THAT IS THE LAW.
- In order to use a car, you have to take a driver's ed course and then a test.....no harm in doing so with guns, being that there are scores of firing ranges who would welcome the business.
- Addition of my proposal is nothing more than a tweak to all the laws on State and Federal books....no harm or big deal to those who truly desire firearms, as it would greatly aid in tracking and detecting illegal sales.
- Your last sentence is true....so why make it easier and more efficient for said nut job to kill you with an assault rifle that can be purchased with little difficulty like Cruz did?

....most vehicles whose use is limited to private property, are not always required to be registered.
and you can drive all over your own property without insurance....
There is no requirement that you have a driver's license to own or purchase a vehicle.

Like I said, the op is nonsense...anyone can buy a car....you don't have to drive it, you don't have to take a test, you don't have to register it, you don't have be physically fit, etc.....

so do you really want guns laws to mimic car laws ?

- your first sentence refers to an extremely minute, SPECIFIC TYPE of purchase which is NOT the VAST MAJORITY OF AUTO PURCHASES BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC, but still requires license and/or registration. If you can PROVE OTHERWISE with documented facts, PLEASE DO.
- repeating your hyperbole does not translate into a total truth. Trying to pass off an extreme EXCEPTION is NOT the Status quo, and therefore does NOT invalidate my previous statements.
- Your last question infers that your flawed analysis is correct....Only in your insipidly stubborn mind, which is prone to take revisionism over valid, documented historical fact. The OP is still valid...you just don't like it and try to fabricate all type of scenarios to counter it. You fail as usual.

 

[Taichiliberal]

driving is a privilege not a right

Got that

Owning a gun TO FORM A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, is a right. General ownership is a privilege, NOT a right. Got that?

Cars require license and registration in order to limit the amount of accidents and theft. So why shouldn't the same exist for devices designed to kill?