Future pathway to sensible gun reform,

RB 60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your anecdote is unpersuasive. Somewhere out there is a kid who can text while winning Le Mons. That is not argument that we should not have drivers skill instruction. Your arguments can also be used to allow me to own my personal anti-aircraft artillary, so long as I am adequately trained and apprised of the dangers of misuse. ...Or nuclear weapons, for that matter.

We are in the realm of standards and policy, not "my daddy dun told me"
 
Micawber said:
Your anecdote is unpersuasive. Somewhere out there is a kid who can text while winning Le Mons. That is not argument that we should not have drivers skill instruction. Your arguments can also be used to allow me to own my personal anti-aircraft artillary, so long as I am adequately trained and apprised of the dangers of misuse. ...Or nuclear weapons, for that matter.
Click to expand...

this is a pretty good argument why liberals and conservatives should be banned from public office and executed live on television. you have zero concept of freedom nor of the tenants of the framers and their design in why we the people wrote the constitution.
 
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...

The majority of mass murderers were "responsible gun owners" before they opened fire on innocent people, and purchasing a weapon from the Army should tell you pretty much what the intial purpose of that weapon when it was produced.

I could care less if some guy wants to own an arsenal in his basement, but the mass production of weapons and easy access to this glut of guns has to be checked, and seeing it ain't going to done legislatively, legally seems the best recourse. What are you worried about, they are going after the gun manufacturers not the individual owners
 
archives said:
What are you worried about, they are going after the gun manufacturers not the individual owners
Click to expand...

a design to make guns too expensive to buy. A tactic that limited the 'legal' number of machine guns to just over 200k, making them 20k+ to purchase and own one. So you could say that they hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated by deploring wealth, but making it so that only the wealthy can buy firearms.
 
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...


for the same reason insurance is ever required...shi'ite happens
 
katzgar said:
for the same reason insurance is ever required...shi'ite happens
Click to expand...

then I think before you require citizens to have liability insurance for 'accidents', you should require every single law enforcement individual to have 2 million dollars in liability before they are allowed out on patrols.
 
katzgar said:
for the same reason insurance is ever required...shi'ite happens
Click to expand...

"shi'ite" hasn't happened to me over the last 50 years, and I wouldn't even try to count the number of rounds I've fired over that time period. It's just common sense.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then I think before you require citizens to have liability insurance for 'accidents', you should require every single law enforcement individual to have 2 million dollars in liability before they are allowed out on patrols.
Click to expand...

And communities usually have such for their police and fire departments
 
Superfreak said:
yet that is precisely what the op wants to do with gun manufacturers. Try reading.
Click to expand...

Product liability for a product necessary for the function of society and manufactured with the INTENT of transportation is one thing.

Product liability for a product such as high capacity magazines, bump stocks, AK-47 style weapons, etc., MARKETED with the obvious INTENT is another.

Let’s see the records of their internal commnication, shall we?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...

How was trip to the courthouse with your little popgun, shall-not-be-infringed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top