Simple solutions to school shootings

[Superfreak]

1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/def...sault-weapon-is-a-very-contentious-issue.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

2) There is no Constitutional Amendment needed to license and register all weapons like we do cars, since that would NOT prohibit anyone who can afford it from purchasing said weapon, as they do now. As for illegal gun sales, my proposal would reduce the number of illegal gun sales (i.e., the iron pipeline), as it would make it more difficult for the criminal element to use shills to purchase their merchandise. Out right theft is yet another law enforcement issue.

1) Just because the media made up a term, doesn't change the fact that it is a made up term.
2) We charge people to license and register cars. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The RIGHT to bear arms is provided in the Constitution. You don't have the authority to charge someone to register and license guns. Unless you are suggesting removing the right to own a gun from those that cannot afford it? Just give that right to the wealthy? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[leaningright]

1) Just because the media made up a term, doesn't change the fact that it is a made up term.
2) We charge people to license and register cars. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The RIGHT to bear arms is provided in the Constitution. You don't have the authority to charge someone to register and license guns. Unless you are suggesting removing the right to own a gun from those that cannot afford it? Just give that right to the wealthy? Is that what you are suggesting?

This. This is exactly what I want to keep at the forefront of the conversation.

 

[domer76]

1) Just because the media made up a term, doesn't change the fact that it is a made up term.
2) We charge people to license and register cars. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The RIGHT to bear arms is provided in the Constitution. You don't have the authority to charge someone to register and license guns. Unless you are suggesting removing the right to own a gun from those that cannot afford it? Just give that right to the wealthy? Is that what you are suggesting?

2) The right to bear arms says nothing about fees or costs associated with it. People who cannot afford weapons still possess the right. Because somebody can't afford a Colt Python doesn't mean they have lost their precious right.

Another absurd and feckless argument

 

[SmarterthanYou]

2) The right to bear arms says nothing about fees or costs associated with it. People who cannot afford weapons still possess the right. Because somebody can't afford a Colt Python doesn't mean they have lost their precious right.

Another absurd and feckless argument

that's a pile of crap and you damn well know it. machine guns made before may 1986 are still legal for civilians to own, but because you traitorous democrats applied a tax and timeline restriction, those weapons are now in excess of 20 grand to own, therefore making it a right for the wealthy only. fuck you and your unconstitutional ways.

 

[Superfreak]

2) The right to bear arms says nothing about fees or costs associated with it. People who cannot afford weapons still possess the right. Because somebody can't afford a Colt Python doesn't mean they have lost their precious right.

Another absurd and feckless argument

Absurd? So very funny. So you think it is ok to make people get a license to vote then? Because that only costs $10-20. Glad you accept the need to make sure we regulate the vote too.

A gun purchase is something you can save up for. Forcing them to license it each year like a car is an ongoing fee. Something many cannot afford. You are restricting the right via the fee. Don't pretend otherwise.

 

[Truth Detector]

Okay, listen up NRA flunkies and republican/conservative wonks. To prevent shootings like what recently happened in Florida, you do the following:

1. Reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban. Had this been in place, Cruz would NOT have had an AR-15 in his possession.

2. Treat ALL weapons like an automobile. This means that they have to be licensed and registered, and the owner has to pass a written and physical competency test. This will severely cut down on the trafficking of illegal gun sales and greatly assist in the tracking of guns used in a crime.

Got that?

^Moronically thinks that criminals obey gun laws. Good lord, talk about naive and stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

2) The right to bear arms says nothing about fees or costs associated with it. People who cannot afford weapons still possess the right. Because somebody can't afford a Colt Python doesn't mean they have lost their precious right.

Another absurd and feckless argument

This from a lying leftist dumbfuck who thinks that requiring voter IDs is disenfranchisement. You really are too stupid for words.

 

[domer76]

Absurd? So very funny. So you think it is ok to make people get a license to vote then? Because that only costs $10-20. Glad you accept the need to make sure we regulate the vote too.

A gun purchase is something you can save up for. Forcing them to license it each year like a car is an ongoing fee. Something many cannot afford. You are restricting the right via the fee. Don't pretend otherwise.

lol

I see you tried another lame diversionary tactic. You barrel-stroking morons are SO predictable! But, I'll play.

You see, the right HAS been trying to reduce the vote for a segment of the population by associating fees with it. Thanks for admitting that. Most RW morons actually claim it's to prevent voter fraud. However, their right remains intact, doesn't it, dimwit? Thanks for reinforcing my very point.

About not being able to afford an AK-47? Tough shit, Rambutt. Cry me a river of tears.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

lol

I see you tried another lame diversionary tactic. You barrel-stroking morons are SO predictable! But, I'll play.

You see, the right HAS been trying to reduce the vote for a segment of the population by associating fees with it. Thanks for admitting that. Most RW morons actually claim it's to prevent voter fraud. However, their right remains intact, doesn't it, dimwit? Thanks for reinforcing my very point.

About not being able to afford an AK-47? Tough shit, Rambutt. Cry me a river of tears.

by this statement, you simply prove that you want to do anything and everything to prohibit guns and that you're not concerned with the constitution at all. thanks for verifying that.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

2) The right to bear arms says nothing about fees or costs associated with it. People who cannot afford weapons still possess the right. Because somebody can't afford a Colt Python doesn't mean they have lost their precious right.

Another absurd and feckless argument

Ergo: people who don't have an ID, still possess the right to vote, they just need to get an ID and they can vote.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Absurd? So very funny. So you think it is ok to make people get a license to vote then? Because that only costs $10-20. Glad you accept the need to make sure we regulate the vote too.

A gun purchase is something you can save up for. Forcing them to license it each year like a car is an ongoing fee. Something many cannot afford. You are restricting the right via the fee. Don't pretend otherwise.

Even less in AZ; because you can get a State ID, for around $4.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

lol

I see you tried another lame diversionary tactic. You barrel-stroking morons are SO predictable! But, I'll play.

You see, the right HAS been trying to reduce the vote for a segment of the population by associating fees with it. Thanks for admitting that. Most RW morons actually claim it's to prevent voter fraud. However, their right remains intact, doesn't it, dimwit? Thanks for reinforcing my very point.

About not being able to afford an AK-47? Tough shit, Rambutt. Cry me a river of tears.

But isn't the cost of an AK, also a fee??

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yes guys, Tach was wrong. The pistol shown was banned for purchase after the Clinton AWB. That’s a fact.

Ahh, the devil is always in the details:

when was this particular weapon (name/designation) banned? Under what legal statute? In relation to the sunset of the AWB? I'll wait.

 

[Taichiliberal]

it infringes on MY rights as an American. THAT is my beef with that. I understand that YOU don't care about certain rights, your prerogative as an American, but it is NOT your right to interfere with MY rights.

Spare me this BS of yours.....if you truly had knowledge about adherence to the Constitution and the legal dictates as to how weapons for militias were to be stored and accounted for, you'd shit your pants.

Again and again for willfully ignorant: The AWB did NOT ban all weapons. The Constitution does NOT guarantee you a military grade weapon UNLESS YOU BELONG TO A LEGAL, RECOGNIZED STATE MILITIA. It does guarantee you the right to arm yourself.

If you can't defend yourself or your home with the plethora of semi-automatic handguns, revolvers, shotguns, rifles and hunting rifles available EVEN WHEN THE AWB WAS IN PLACE, then you are either a lousy shot, one brick shy of a paranoid load, or a shill for the NRA/gun manufacturers.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And once again, you demonstrate the lie that is your screen name. An easy google search shows the following: Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

And then there is this:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b08f96c182dc38

And to clarify my previous response point:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-gun-laws.html

I suggest you get your head from up your behind and deal with reality, logic and FACTS.

there is no 'gun show loophole'. again, you know jack shit apparently. the chronology of this myth starts at the base of the ATF not wanting every kitchen table seller having access to the NICS system for background checks. see, back at that time, private sellers were considered dealers and they also had to perform checks on sales. So the compromise from the ATF was to only require LICENSED dealers, not some joe schmoe who made a grand a month selling guns. so there is NO 'gun show loophole'

And there you have it folks.....STY is in total denial of documented, valid facts. He prefers his personal interpretation of the law, along with his supposition and conjecture. Typical right wing revisionism. Sad, but not unexpected.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Or

iginally Posted by Taichiliberal
1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/defi...ous-issue.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

2) There is no Constitutional Amendment needed to license and register all weapons like we do cars, since that would NOT prohibit anyone who can afford it from purchasing said weapon, as they do now. As for illegal gun sales, my proposal would reduce the number of illegal gun sales (i.e., the iron pipeline), as it would make it more difficult for the criminal element to use shills to purchase their merchandise. Out right theft is yet another law enforcement issue.

1) Just because the media made up a term, doesn't change the fact that it is a made up term.
2) We charge people to license and register cars. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The RIGHT to bear arms is provided in the Constitution. You don't have the authority to charge someone to register and license guns. Unless you are suggesting removing the right to own a gun from those that cannot afford it? Just give that right to the wealthy? Is that what you are suggesting?

1) learn to read carefully and comprehensively, as the terminology did NOT originate with the "media"....despite your insisting to the contrary (of which you cannot logically or factually prove.
2)We charge people to own a gun (it's called a sale). Licenses for CC and CCW cost,as well as gun ownership licenses in some states. The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms in order to form a militia , and your head would explode if you honestly researched the requirements for ownership and storage of said weapons. Outside of a militia, you do NOT have the right to military grade weapons....just weapons in general. The rest of your questions are just straw man stupidity.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I am quoting DIRECTLY from the law you dipshit. Do you not know how to read it?

As the chronology of the posts shows, you are excerpting what you like and disregarding what you don't. I gave valid documentation as to why your base statement is wrong. Can you provide the contrary I'll wait.

 

[Taichiliberal]

TaiChi, you did not "educate" me. I was trying to politely point out an error in your view of the way the law was actually written and enforced. Now you can go fuck yourself. You are flat out wrong.

Saying it and proving it are two different things, my friend. I proved my statement with valid, documented fact...your personal opinion and viewpoint non-withstanding. TFB if it irritates you, but know one said life was fair or easy.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Still didn't answer the question. But nice try.

Actually, you're either too dumb to comprehend the answer or insipidly stubborn. Either way, a waste of time and space. So spew the lase self aggrandizing word...the rational, objective reader sees your folly, and I don't see the point in filling up my thread space with your baloney.

 

[leaningright]

Ahh, the devil is always in the details:

when was this particular weapon (name/designation) banned? Under what legal statute? In relation to the sunset of the AWB? I'll wait.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/home-featured/the-real-history-of-the-assault-weapons-ban/

I know you’ll just love this source but the list should be accurate and the specifics of the pistol in question that banned its further production for sale in the US post 1994 were magazine capacity and threaded barrel. I bought this gun in 1992 and liked it so well I went to get another one in the fall of ‘94 and they were gone and weren’t coming back. It was banned because of its features.