Regulate every weapon. Regulate every firearm owner. Regulate every Gun Maker. Make Firearm Owners and Manufacturers liable for them. Make people prove they have control of their weapons every year. If a weapon is used in the commission of a crime make the purchaser and seller potentially liable.
It's the flood of "legal" weapons into this Nation which is fueling the massive gun violence.
When you agree to license book owners and register every book, to ban books that some find offensive, to make sales of books across state borders illegal, to ban the possession of books in text-free zones, to limit the number of words that a book may have and the size of the font--those regulations and many others--then you'll at least be consistent.
Nice twisted logic you have there - comparing books to lethal weapons. I suppose you might be able to bludgeon someone to death with a really thick book if you walked up behind them and they stood still.
Twisted? Perhaps you're unaware of how books change whole societies. Perhaps you're unaware of books that have started or inspired wars. Books that have advocated all manner of ills.
But I believe in the rights and in the goodness of humanity. Apparently, you don't.
Right, guns are not free speech, but, "Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."
-- Peter Venetoklis
But go ahead, treat all lethal weapons like a car, those would include knives, bats, scissors, heavy vases, bricks, rocks, plastic bags, lethal hands and feet, etc., etc., etc. Go ahead, be consistent. OOPS! I forgot, that is something you people are incapable of.
Much like the phenomenon of individual gun ownership, the mass use of motorized vehicles serves to cause more harm to society, with little return in light of alternative means of transport. The use of the automobile by the masses has resulted in a wastage of public funds and irrigable land, the wastage of precious fuels, a highways which spread the disease of drugs and weapons across continents, the pollution of the environment, the possibility of climate change, and the daily massacre of traffic accidents. By allowing individual mobility, the United States has fallen in to the Charybdis of Personal Freedom, illustrated by the Tragedy of the Commons.
The solution is to gradually prohibit the ownership of use of automobiles by non-State actors with no commercial need for a vehicle (businesses would be allowed to own and operate vehicles as would State entities and agents). Until then, an 80 km speed limit and additional taxes ought to be imposed.
Anonymous said: Right, guns are not free speech, but, "Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."
--- more absurd nonsense. Do you think the mass murderer in Aurora would have made global news if he had yelled "fire!" in the theater. What a joke your twisted logic is.
Rather than quoting some idiot like Peter Venetoklis, try rubbing together the two brain cells in your hollow skull and explain to us why most firearms are owned by inbred hicks.
X, that is quite a callous statement to make about the recently murdered Nancy Lanza. But obviously you were talking about these people: http://www.therightscoop.com/turns-out-both-harry-reid-and-diane-feinstein-have-carried-guns-for-their-protection/
Xraymike illustrates the inability for control freaks to speak civilly in a discussion. The desire to control others is grounded in the belief that others are of less worth or less ability than oneself.
Well first of all those restrictions would only apply if you want to drive the car on public roads. If you are merely transporting the car from one private area to another and only operate the vehicle on private property then none of those regulations are required. Are you proposing these regulations just for people that want to carry in public?
Also, would a license in TN count in NY? Would NY or other restrictive states be forced to allow all licensed individuals to carry weapons? Would all public places that allow cars on their property also be required to allow licensed weapons in their facilities?
One last question - would all people that meet these requirements be granted a weapon's carry license on a shall issue basis similar to driver's license and car tags?
Anony: "would all people that meet these requirements be granted a weapon's carry license on a shall issue basis similar to driver's license and car tags?"
Car tags aren't shall issue; they're may issue. Example: if you have a number of DUIs, you're probably not going to get a driver's license. Or you may get one with restrictions.
Now my question: why does the NRA support arming felons?
Jadegold - Having disqualifying attributes like being a felon or mentally ill would mean you do not meet the requirements of owning a gun and receiving a license (these are already conditions of legal gun ownership). By "Shall Issue" you know that I mean that law officers or other governmental officials would have no right to withold a license from a qualified candidate. You do not have to show a "need" to get a driver's license, similarly you would not have to show a "need" to obtain your carry license.
The NRA supports arming felons? You have a statement from the NRA to show that is their official position? I believe as Democommie would say - show me the source or you are just blowing smoke out your ass.
Cool. And if I can afford it, I can own any car I want, provided it's kept on my property. That means machine guns, assault weapons, and .50 BMG rifles if I can afford them
Much like the phenomenon of individual gun ownership, the mass use of motorized vehicles serves to cause more harm to society, with little return in light of alternative means of transport. The use of the automobile by the masses has resulted in a wastage of public funds and irrigable land, the wastage of precious fuels, a highways which spread the disease of drugs and weapons across continents, the pollution of the environment, the possibility of climate change, and the daily massacre of traffic accidents. By allowing individual mobility, the United States has fallen in to the Charybdis of Personal Freedom, illustrated by the Tragedy of the Commons.
The solution is to gradually prohibit the ownership of use of automobiles by non-State actors with no commercial need for a vehicle (businesses would be allowed to own and operate vehicles as would State entities and agents). Until then, an 80 km speed limit and additional taxes ought to be imposed.
We need to chain guns to their lovers.
ReplyDeleteRegulate every weapon. Regulate every firearm owner. Regulate every Gun Maker. Make Firearm Owners and Manufacturers liable for them. Make people prove they have control of their weapons every year. If a weapon is used in the commission of a crime make the purchaser and seller potentially liable.
It's the flood of "legal" weapons into this Nation which is fueling the massive gun violence.
When you agree to license book owners and register every book, to ban books that some find offensive, to make sales of books across state borders illegal, to ban the possession of books in text-free zones, to limit the number of words that a book may have and the size of the font--those regulations and many others--then you'll at least be consistent.
DeleteYou'll still be wrong.
Nice twisted logic you have there - comparing books to lethal weapons. I suppose you might be able to bludgeon someone to death with a really thick book if you walked up behind them and they stood still.
DeleteTwisted? Perhaps you're unaware of how books change whole societies. Perhaps you're unaware of books that have started or inspired wars. Books that have advocated all manner of ills.
DeleteBut I believe in the rights and in the goodness of humanity. Apparently, you don't.
Guns are not free speech.
DeleteRight, guns are not free speech, but,
Delete"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."
-- Peter Venetoklis
But go ahead, treat all lethal weapons like a car, those would include knives, bats, scissors, heavy vases, bricks, rocks, plastic bags, lethal hands and feet, etc., etc., etc. Go ahead, be consistent. OOPS! I forgot, that is something you people are incapable of.
orlin sellers
To ensure that my post is seen by all.......
DeleteMuch like the phenomenon of individual gun ownership, the mass use of motorized vehicles serves to cause more harm to society, with little return in light of alternative means of transport. The use of the automobile by the masses has resulted in a wastage of public funds and irrigable land, the wastage of precious fuels, a highways which spread the disease of drugs and weapons across continents, the pollution of the environment, the possibility of climate change, and the daily massacre of traffic accidents. By allowing individual mobility, the United States has fallen in to the Charybdis of Personal Freedom, illustrated by the Tragedy of the Commons.
The solution is to gradually prohibit the ownership of use of automobiles by non-State actors with no commercial need for a vehicle (businesses would be allowed to own and operate vehicles as would State entities and agents). Until then, an 80 km speed limit and additional taxes ought to be imposed.
Check out this site:
http://banthecar.com/
Yes that does exist
Anonymous said:
DeleteRight, guns are not free speech, but,
"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."
--- more absurd nonsense. Do you think the mass murderer in Aurora would have made global news if he had yelled "fire!" in the theater.
What a joke your twisted logic is.
Seriously? That's your response? When you have a mental capability that equals unborn twins, let me know.
Deleteorlin sellers
Rather than quoting some idiot like Peter Venetoklis, try rubbing together the two brain cells in your hollow skull and explain to us why most firearms are owned by inbred hicks.
Deletexraymike, thanks for your comments. You're absolutely right, but don't expect these guys to admit it.
DeleteX, that is quite a callous statement to make about the recently murdered Nancy Lanza.
DeleteBut obviously you were talking about these people:
http://www.therightscoop.com/turns-out-both-harry-reid-and-diane-feinstein-have-carried-guns-for-their-protection/
orlin sellers
Xraymike illustrates the inability for control freaks to speak civilly in a discussion. The desire to control others is grounded in the belief that others are of less worth or less ability than oneself.
DeleteE.N., do feel free to submit yourself to someone else for transportation. I'll drive myself, thanks.
DeleteWell first of all those restrictions would only apply if you want to drive the car on public roads. If you are merely transporting the car from one private area to another and only operate the vehicle on private property then none of those regulations are required. Are you proposing these regulations just for people that want to carry in public?
ReplyDeleteAlso, would a license in TN count in NY? Would NY or other restrictive states be forced to allow all licensed individuals to carry weapons? Would all public places that allow cars on their property also be required to allow licensed weapons in their facilities?
One last question - would all people that meet these requirements be granted a weapon's carry license on a shall issue basis similar to driver's license and car tags?
DeleteAnony: "would all people that meet these requirements be granted a weapon's carry license on a shall issue basis similar to driver's license and car tags?"
ReplyDeleteCar tags aren't shall issue; they're may issue. Example: if you have a number of DUIs, you're probably not going to get a driver's license. Or you may get one with restrictions.
Now my question: why does the NRA support arming felons?
Jadegold - Having disqualifying attributes like being a felon or mentally ill would mean you do not meet the requirements of owning a gun and receiving a license (these are already conditions of legal gun ownership). By "Shall Issue" you know that I mean that law officers or other governmental officials would have no right to withold a license from a qualified candidate. You do not have to show a "need" to get a driver's license, similarly you would not have to show a "need" to obtain your carry license.
DeleteThe NRA supports arming felons? You have a statement from the NRA to show that is their official position? I believe as Democommie would say - show me the source or you are just blowing smoke out your ass.
Exactly.
DeleteShall Issue, by definition, means if you meet the eligibility requirements, you get the license. Period. Just like a DL.
Look at my comment below. I propose a solution which would suit the needs of all.
DeleteI believe in regulating automobiles and vehicles in a similar manner.
Cool. And if I can afford it, I can own any car I want, provided it's kept on my property. That means machine guns, assault weapons, and .50 BMG rifles if I can afford them
ReplyDeleteMuch like the phenomenon of individual gun ownership, the mass use of motorized vehicles serves to cause more harm to society, with little return in light of alternative means of transport. The use of the automobile by the masses has resulted in a wastage of public funds and irrigable land, the wastage of precious fuels, a highways which spread the disease of drugs and weapons across continents, the pollution of the environment, the possibility of climate change, and the daily massacre of traffic accidents. By allowing individual mobility, the United States has fallen in to the Charybdis of Personal Freedom, illustrated by the Tragedy of the Commons.
ReplyDeleteThe solution is to gradually prohibit the ownership of use of automobiles by non-State actors with no commercial need for a vehicle (businesses would be allowed to own and operate vehicles as would State entities and agents). Until then, an 80 km speed limit and additional taxes ought to be imposed.
Check out this site:
http://banthecar.com/
Yes that does exist
Yep Mike - this guy is on your side.... you are welcome to the absurdity that is the limitation of freedoms that your side proposes.
Delete