Gun Control, but not Abortion Control?

[coastal-boy]

There is the question.....how do you keep the stupid people from having them, I advocated strict training regulations in order to simply buy one under a shall issue system.

Shrink sayz you are ok? Completed training verifying you know wtf you are doing? You get to have a gun....

No licence saying shrink/competency approved....you go to prison and the guns are taken from you.

I think this is a good start. You also must pass random drug tests paid for by the owner of the weapon.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

And this is the very root of it all. Anti-gun nuts want to abolish every law abiding citizen's right to own a gun. They're so naive they don't get it.

Specifically who? I haven't heard or read about anyone calling for a ban of all guns.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

Specifically who? I haven't heard or read about anyone calling for a ban of all guns.

Have you been asleep the past few years?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I think this is a good start. You also must pass random drug tests paid for by the owner of the weapon.

Yep and a registry.

Gun not on the registry…..straight to jail, do not pass go.

Woof!

 

[coastal-boy]

Yep and a registry.

Gun not on the registry…..straight to jail, do not pass go.

Woof!

I have no issue with this either.

 

[coastal-boy]

crickets....

Well that sucks...I was just starting to have fun.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I have no issue with this either.

I don't see why any reasonably minded person would.

Woof!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Have you been asleep the past few years?

No. Has anyone on here called for an all out gun ban?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I think this is a good start. You also must pass random drug tests paid for by the owner of the weapon.

Werd...

Yep and a registry.

Gun not on the registry…..straight to jail, do not pass go.

Woof!

You know how many times gun registration is used int he prosecution of a crime? Less than finger prints, it's an extremely microscopic amount that was simply there as extra evidence if the owner just happened to be the suspect accused of using it in a crime... Canadian LEO's are trying too or may have gotten rid of their's b/c it's nothing but a "feel good" money pit and the cops want to use the funds for better things. At least that's what my Mountie buddy tells me.

Why you might ask? Because most crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons, and serial number on guns rarely survive a crime to link them back to a registry, so they have to use ballistic evidence which is far more damming to the perp and as such they would have to do so anyhow. Add to that the fact that gun registration couldn't be used in court for shit they still have to prove the suspect was the one using the weapon ID'ed as the murder weapon via ballistic testing anyhow which may or may not be the owner. It may sound good but in reality it's a superfluous warm fuzzy that does nothing but cost money because ballistic evidence is the standard weapon ID method anyhow.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Werd...



You know how many times gun registration is used int he prosecution of a crime? Less than finger prints, it's an extremely microscopic amount that was simply there as extra evidence if the owner just happened to be the suspect accused of using it in a crime... Canadian LEO's are trying too or may have gotten rid of their's b/c it's nothing but a "feel good" money pit and the cops want to use the funds for better things. At least that's what my Mountie buddy tells me.

Why you might ask? Because most crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons, and serial number on guns rarely survive a crime to link them back to a registry, so they have to use ballistic evidence which is far more damming to the perp and as such they would have to do so anyhow. Add to that the fact that gun registration couldn't be used in court for shit they still have to prove the suspect was the one using the weapon ID'ed as the murder weapon via ballistic testing anyhow which may or may not be the owner. It may sound good but in reality it's a superfluous warm fuzzy that does nothing but cost money because ballistic evidence is the standard weapon ID method anyhow.

You, as ever, miss the point. (but like last time I'm sure you will continue arguing the point you don't get and avoid the point being made like the plague) However.......

The point isn’t to use it in the prosecution of a crime it is to know where the guns are, who has them an if they are being used/kept in a responsible way and to prevent them falling into the hands of criminals and the insane.

You have car registration in the US don’t you?

Woof!

 

[Byron In Exile]

You, as ever, miss the point. (but like last time I'm sure you will continue arguing the point you don't get and avoid the point being made like the plague) However.......

The point isn’t to use it in the prosecution of a crime it is to know where the guns are, who has them an if they are being used/kept in a responsible way and to prevent them falling into the hands of criminals and the insane.

You have car registration in the US don’t you?

Woof!

Yes, we have car registration in the US.

But driving around in a car isn't a right.

Owning guns is a right.

Do you see the difference?

 

[SeaDaddy1]

No. Has anyone on here called for an all out gun ban?

Here? This isn't the only place for that.

I was raised in TN. My family always registered their guns. I could walk into any county office (same with any place selling guns, including Walmart) with my guns to show physical proof of the numbers on the gun. No drama, no problem. In TX, I did the same thing. No problem again.

A few years later, I'm walking into the county seat of where I now live to do the same, where it's also normal. When I come out to my car, there's 3 cop cars pulling up and 6 cops saying they had two 911 calls w/a physical description of me acting like a madman. As I was showing them my papers and license, they said sorry about the misunderstanding and sped off.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

If it were 100% legally repealed.....2A gone as a mother fucker....would you abide?

Nope. I would keep a firearm in the home and take my chances with the Law finding out.

Should she in your opinion have the right to have a firearm for any other reason than to save her life?

Let's say for hunting ducks or protecting her property?

Of course. I listed the "save life" angle because the same Democrats that want to allow her to live via abortion are also willing to leave her "hanging in the wind" by limiting her right to forearms.

BUT, deadly force cannot be used to save property (not in my State anyway).

Amazing thing...there are 2 ways to change it.

But that isn't the point is it? The point is that the right wing are hypocritical. They are willing to violate one "right" but not another.

In the Right's defense, they (nor do I) see abortion as a "right." But the SCOTUS ruled it is, so I abide.

I've never said otherwise.

I'm still trying to figure out why you want controls on some things but no controls on guns.

I do not. Reread what I posted.

 

[Byron In Exile]

America is an armed society.

If the rest of the world can't understand that, then they need to step the fuck off.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You, as ever, miss the point. (but like last time I'm sure you will continue arguing the point you don't get and avaoid the point being made like the plague) However.......

The point isn’t to use it in the prosecution of a crime it is to know where the guns are, who has them an if they are being used/kept in a responsible way and to prevent them falling into the hands of criminals and the insane.

You have car registration in the US don’t you?

Woof!

So what is the point?

If they aren't used in a crime no one gives 2 shits who or what they are used for bro....I can get wasted and blow 10,000 rounds out of a .50 cal machine gun off my back porch into the hillside at paper targets and not a single fuck would EVER be given, not in a billion years.

We do have auto registration...doesn't do a single thing to stop auto theft, drunk drivers, reckless drivers etc. it's a tax to pay for roads/road side assistance programs/cops etc. it's a tax for a little sticker that says you paid you fee to drive around, that's it and everyone knows it.

Gun theft is 10x easier!! 2 min with a file and the entire system is rendered pointless, which is my point. And also the very reason gun registrations and numbers are only ever used or could possibly be useful would be when someone is playing 100% by the rules, we aren't worried about them. IF someone doesn't play by the rules and commits a crime they use ballistic evidence, it's far more accurate than registration paperwork making that system a redundant money pit.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Yes, we have car registration in the US.

But driving around in a car isn't a right.

Owning guns is a right.

Do you see the difference?

Can we both agree that: the first duty of government (state) is to safeguard the safety of citizen in that state?

There is no more fundamental right than that of life itself?

Gun owner ship is a derived right and NOT a fundamental right?

You see the problem here?

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

America is an armed society.

If the rest of the world can't understand that, then they need to step the fuck off.

And allow your ignorance to fuel the slaughter.

Well ok then.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

So what is the point?

Gun theft is 10x easier!! 2 min with a file and the entire system is rendered pointless, which is my point. And also the very reason gun registrations and numbers are only ever used or could possibly be useful would be when someone is playing 100% by the rules, we aren't worried about them. IF someone doesn't play by the rules and commits a crime they use ballistic evidence, it's far more accurate than registration paperwork making that system a redundant money pit.

So why bother with car registeration then?

Woof!

 

[Liar]

Of course. I listed the "save life" angle because the same Democrats that want to allow her to live via abortion are also willing to leave her "hanging in the wind" by limiting her right to forearms.

BUT, deadly force cannot be used to save property (not in my State anyway).

Your argument is all lopsided. Some Democrats want to limit access to some guns, while leaving access to many other types of guns quite free and open, all fully capable for personal protection.

If we are to compare that to abortion, it would be like wanting to limit access to a specific type of abortion procedure, while letting all other types of abortion procedues be available without much regulation. If conservatives ONLY wanted to get rid or partial-birth abortions, while agreeing to keep other types of abortion readily accessible, the two issues could be comparable.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

And allow your ignorance to fuel the slaughter.

Well ok then.

Woof!

So way bother with car registeration then?

Woof!

Elaborate please.

 

[Liar]

America is an armed society.

If the rest of the world can't understand that, then they need to step the fuck off.

And Russia is a drunk society.

Does that mean we can't talk about whether that is a good or a bad thing and whether Russia might or might not benefit from policies that adress that?


The reason I don't is because I don't deal with Russia much, while I travel to and do business with America all the time. And there are as far as I know no Russians on the GB to talk about it with.

 

[coastal-boy]

In the Right's defense, they (nor do I) see abortion as a "right." But the SCOTUS ruled it is, so I abide.

Then why create this fucking thread? Wow...did you step into that one. What a fucking idiot.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Elaborate please.

I don't see it needs a more elaborate explanation than is already written on this page.

What is it you don't get?


Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

And Russia is a drunk society.

Does that mean we can't talk about whether that is a good or a bad thing and whether Russia might or might not benefit from policies that adress that?


The reason I don't is because I don't deal with Russia much, while I travel to and do business with America all the time. And there are as far as I know no Russians on the GB to talk about it with.

It makes you wonder when you have to explain things to this degree.

Woof!

 

[renard_ruse]

If a woman has the right to an abortion...

Abortion has NOTHING to do with women. At least not specifically. A man doesn't have a right to an abortion? What about infertile women, women not of childbearing age, etc? Its never been a "woman issue."