Future pathway to sensible gun reform,

domer76 said:
You’re not going to try the absurd car/gun analogy again, are you? It failed the first multiple thousand times. It doesn’t improve with age.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't change the facts, does it?
Both can kill in numbers, can't they?
 
domer76 said:
The logic of a moron, moron.

No guns - a society functions nicely.
No vehicles - try that one on, idiot.
Click to expand...

there ya go. you've satisfactorily displayed the logic of a moron with your delusional viewpoint of a utopia that will NEVER exist. you still haven't answered whether you believe driving one of those necessary vehicles to be a right........but don't bother. we all know you don't believe in rights. only permissions from the government.
 
Comparing cars to guns is inane, semiautomatic weapons are designed for only one purpose, to kill as many as is possible in the shortest period of time

But putting that aside, if the conservatives think they are comparable, then guns should be treated like cars to include full liability insurance
 
archives said:
Comparing cars to guns is inane, semiautomatic weapons are designed for only one purpose, to kill as many as is possible in the shortest period of time

But putting that aside, if the conservatives think they are comparable, then guns should be treated like cars to include full liability insurance
Click to expand...

and again... you are WRONG. They are not designed for only one purpose. You pretending that is the case, will not alter the reality.

Again... guns, semiauto included, can be used for (1) Hunting (2) Target practice (3) Defense (4) Murder

So pretending they are only designed for murder is dishonest. Period.

If you use an inanimate object in a manner that violates the law, you get punished. Regardless of whether it is a gun, a car, a truck, a knife, a bat etc... It is the person that breaks the law, not the inanimate object.
 
Corazón said:
Maybe all cars should have a built-in breathalyser, if you fail it the car won't start.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It would be an expensive option, especially for those of us who don't drink.
 
archives said:
Comparing cars to guns is inane, semiautomatic weapons are designed for only one purpose, to kill as many as is possible in the shortest period of time

But putting that aside, if the conservatives think they are comparable, then guns should be treated like cars to include full liability insurance
Click to expand...

I've stated before, I own many firearms, the only ones "designed for only one purpose, to kill as many as is possible" are the ones I purchased from the Army to compete in service rifle competitions. Those have only been used to shoot at paper targets on rifle ranges.
There are millions of responsible gun owners who are safe and knowledgeable with and of their firearms and never have had any accidents. Why penalize those with unneeded insurance?
 
RB 60 said:
I've stated before, I own many firearms, the only ones "designed for only one purpose, to kill as many as is possible" are the ones I purchased from the Army to compete in service rifle competitions. Those have only been used to shoot at paper targets on rifle ranges.
There are millions of responsible gun owners who are safe and knowledgeable with and of their firearms and never have had any accidents. Why penalize those with unneeded insurance?
Click to expand...
Would you agree to a proficiency test which anyone with military training would be excused?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Corazón said:
Wouldn't be an option, if it was mandatory. Anyway it would lower insurance premiums.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Possibly, but with today's generation (and some older), cell phones have become the new danger. So would it really drop insurance rates?
 
Corazón said:
Would you agree to a proficiency test which anyone with military training would be excused?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Like I had to take back in 6th. grade, I would recommend every student taking the hunter safety course, but that was complained about/petitioned out by the anti-hunting crowd.
My father taught me how to shoot at a very young age, along with the respect and safe use of a firearm years before I took the hunter safety course. But, I won't deny there are a few (probably many) who would greatly benefit from said training. I was a certified firearms instructor for over 20 years, so I think it's safe to say I have a little knowledge of firearms, so said training wouldn't be much benefit to me.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then what the hell are they claiming is the issue in the lawsuit if the guns operated AS INTENDED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Click to expand...

And that's where they will fail; because the onus is on them to prove that the manufactures created the product, for the sole purpose and intent of killing someone.

NOW: I'm sure that some lower court, like the 9th, will rule in their favor; but as soon as it hits the SC, it will be shot down (so to speak). :good4u:
 
domer76 said:
You’re not going to try the absurd car/gun analogy again, are you? It failed the first multiple thousand times. It doesn’t improve with age.
Click to expand...

If by failing, you mean the liberals desire to run away and cry about the analogy; then you would be correct.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And that's where they will fail; because the onus is on them to prove that the manufactures created the product, for the sole purpose and intent of killing someone.

NOW: I'm sure that some lower court, like the 9th, will rule in their favor; but as soon as it hits the SC, it will be shot down (so to speak). :good4u:
Click to expand...

well, the 9th did decide against 2nd Amendment rights for MJ card holders, but I wouldn't trust the SC to be faithful to the constitution either
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top