Biden admits truth Finally amazing

[Bulletbob]

The same reason requiring a photo ID for voting but not providing a free one is a back door poll tax. Is that taking away people's rights? If so, then you should understand. If not, then I continue to disagree but at least you'd be consistent.

Well sorry but that inst really a valid argument , you see you need a Id to open a bank account cash a check by cigarettes or booze even if stopped by the police you should have one or expect issues. and they are fairly inexpensive under 20.00 in most states and are good for several years.

now if your talking about a insurance policy that will cost 20.00 for 4 years and cover all my guns that would be fine but we all know thats not how it would work is it .
It would be far more money then that and probably come with all kinds of restrictions.

[archives]

The same reason requiring a photo ID for voting but not providing a free one is a back door poll tax. Is that taking away people's rights? If so, then you should understand. If not, then I continue to disagree but at least you'd be consistent.

There is no analogy there between the two, one is addressing a defined right, the other, debatable, plus, one is specified in law, again the other, not so, no existing law that says you can not regulate firearms

[Doc Dutch]

Just like automobiles, the more guns you possess the more insurance you need, and, similar to auto liability insurance, you have to obtain the insurance annually. Why shouldn’t those that have no need for guns have some protection from those that misuse guns

And it is always interesting how the many forget that Stephen Paddock and others like him were all “good guys” with a gun prior to the second they pulled the trigger making them the “real criminals” gun owners are supposedly protecting themselves from

Back door poll tax.

Chris Rock had a bit where he said the gang gun violence problem could be solved by charging $5000 for each bullet. A gang-banger would say to another gang-banger "I'd put a cap in you ass if I could AFFORD it!"

By your logic, we could solve cyberbullying by charging everyone $1/minute on the Internet. Free Speech be damned, eh?

[Bulletbob]

Just like automobiles, the more guns you possess the more insurance you need, and, similar to auto liability insurance, you have to obtain the insurance annually. Why shouldn’t those that have no need for guns have some protection from those that misuse guns

And it is always interesting how the many forget that Stephen Paddock and others like him were all “good guys” with a gun prior to the second they pulled the trigger making them the “real criminals” gun owners are supposedly protecting themselves from

and misuse is the a key word isn't it. do you think gang banger in Chicago are going to pay for insurance ?

[archives]

and misuse is the a key word isn't it. do you think gang banger in Chicago are going to pay for insurance ?

No, although it may make stolen weapons more difficult to obtain, and I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Americans are worried as much about a “gangbanger in Chicago” as they are the guy next door arguing with his significant other and losing it with his guns at the local shopping center

[blackascoal]

Why does he need the permission of douchy progressives, such as you?

Because there is no intelligence in your bs article .. which is why you made no attempt to defend that ignorance. It’s a weapon of mass murder and NO ONE should have ‘right’ to a weapon of mass murder. It’s just that simple.

[Doc Dutch]

Well sorry but that inst really a valid argument , you see you need a Id to open a bank account cash a check by cigarettes or booze even if stopped by the police you should have one or expect issues. and they are fairly inexpensive under 20.00 in most states and are good for several years.

now if your talking about a insurance policy that will cost 20.00 for 4 years and cover all my guns that would be fine but we all know thats not how it would work is it .
It would be far more money then that and probably come with all kinds of restrictions.

Of course you disagree. You want to eat your cake and keep it too. You want no regulations on an enumerated right but have no problem restricting others from their inalienable rights because you don't like their income or politics.

[Doc Dutch]

There is no analogy there between the two, one is addressing a defined right, the other, debatable, plus, one is specified in law, again the other, not so, no existing law that says you can not regulate firearms

You are 100% wrong since I just made one.

Like I told Bob, there are rights regardless if they are enumerated or inalienable. You, too, are agreeing that authoritarian domination of the nation is a good thing, as long as it's only your team's say so. What you don't understand is that I'm totally against giving that much power to the Federal government. State government? A little more different. A town or local government, a lot looser restrictions since the contact between the citizenry is so much closer.

The only real rule is to not take away the rights of another citizen. Shooting them in the head, stabbing them, poisoning them or running them down with a car are crimes because they deprive another citizen of their right to live.

[archives]

You are 100% wrong since I just made one.

Like I told Bob, there are rights regardless if they are enumerated or inalienable. You, too, are agreeing that authoritarian domination of the nation is a good thing, as long as it's only your team's say so. What you don't understand is that I'm totally against giving that much power to the Federal government. State government? A little more different. A town or local government, a lot looser restrictions since the contact between the citizenry is so much closer.

The only real rule is to not take away the rights of another citizen. Shooting them in the head, stabbing them, poisoning them or running them down with a car are crimes because they deprive another citizen of their right to live.

You did make the analogy but I wouldn’t agree it is relevant for the reasons I stated above

And what you are missing regarding “rights” is that none are absolute, in any form, and accordingly, all rights are based upon reason, not desire

[AProudLefty]

Your avatar is really irritating. Can you possibly make your cat sit still?

Better?

[Doc Dutch]

You did make the analogy but I wouldn’t agree it is relevant for the reasons I stated above

And what you are missing regarding “rights” is that none are absolute, in any form, and accordingly, all rights are based upon reason, not desire

Agree to disagree.

A mistake in line with giving up rights out of convenience or fear. Did you support the Patiot Act? I didn't. Would you have supported FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans at Manzanar? I wouldn't have, but plenty of people like you and Bob did.

Getting rights back after giving them away is very, very difficult and usually involves blood, violence and death. Better, IMO, to not give up those rights in the first place.

[TOP]

Better?

Hopefully the kitty is not declawed....

[Saudade]

Where is it written you can't use a Thompson sub machine gun?

The supreme court has already ruled that there are certain firearms that can be deemed illegal. You cannot own them. That does not mean you do not still have the right to keep and bear arms, just not that particular one. If a state or the Federal govt were to rule that the AR-15 (or guns like it) were declared illegal it would not mean citizens do not still have the right to keep and bear arms.

50 cal machine guns, mortars, grenades, Abrams tanks, ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads are arms too and you can't "keep and bear" one of them either.

Actually you can own most of those with the right level FFL. I don't know of a level of FFL that lets you own warheads, but most of those other things can be acquired with the right fees and certifications.

[Saudade]

And the government, which is the people, have already determined that you can not own certain types of arms and if they decide the assault weapon or AR15 is to be one of them then the ones you own will be illegal. It is that simple and there will be nothing "unconstitutional" about it.

Technically, with the right Court make up, anything can be deemed constitutional. Slavery was considered constitutional originally, but I guess that shows you the worth of government in general.

[Saudade]

Stupid argument,knives are essential and everyone uses one every day, you can't make them illegal, you can outlaw assault weapons.

Sadiq Khan disagrees with you. Knives could potentially be ruled as not essential with the sufficient leftists running things, as shown by London.