Do YOU Prefer the Banning of Guns or the Requirement to Own Guns?

Geeko Sportivo said:
Do I Prefer the Banning of Guns or the Requirement to Own Guns?
I prefer we keep guns and ban idiots that should not have them!
Click to expand...

That's actually reasonable. I think that we should also adopt universal, mandatory, military basic training (say 3 to 4 months + a week a year to like 50 years old) for the entire population (after culling the tards, and other lower lifeforms from that), and let them keep a military grade semi-automatic rifle at home for the 'just in case' scenario...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's actually reasonable. I think that we should also adopt universal, mandatory, military basic training (say 3 to 4 months + a week a year to like 50 years old) for the entire population (after culling the tards, and other lower lifeforms from that), and let them keep a military grade semi-automatic rifle at home for the 'just in case' scenario...
Click to expand...

People can already buy a semi-automatic rifle. There is no such thing as a 'military grade' weapon, other than the military buying it. There are already no limitations on any weapon that is constitutional.

Just in case.
 
Into the Night said:
People can already buy a semi-automatic rifle. There is no such thing as a 'military grade' weapon, other than the military buying it. There are already no limitations on any weapon that is constitutional.

Just in case.
Click to expand...

There is. A .22 LR semi-automatic weapon like the Ruger 10/22 is not "military grade" as an example.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's actually reasonable. I think that we should also adopt universal, mandatory, military basic training (say 3 to 4 months + a week a year to like 50 years old) for the entire population (after culling the tards, and other lower lifeforms from that), and let them keep a military grade semi-automatic rifle at home for the 'just in case' scenario...
Click to expand...

We have to do a better job of screening the idiots out of the pack. So, it pretty much comes down to licensing sellers and owners. If I had my way, each state would adapt licensing and Title for every weapon in the state.

Back in the early 1900's it was determined that Automobiles were also deadly in the wrong hands and were a danger of being stolen. The states worked together to create a licensing system for ownership and sales, and a Title system mandatory for every automobile in their state.

I am not sure where we would all be without it! Can you even imagine?
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
We have to do a better job of screening the idiots out of the pack. So, it pretty much comes down to licensing sellers and owners. If I had my way, each state would adapt licensing and Title for every weapon in the state.

Back in the early 1900's it was determined that Automobiles were also deadly in the wrong hands and were a danger of being stolen. The states worked together to create a licensing system for ownership and sales, and a Title system mandatory for every automobile in their state.

I am not sure where we would all be without it!
Click to expand...

Well, if every adult 18 something had to do 3 or 4 months of military training (think bootcamp +) that would pretty much do the trick. It'd easily weed out 90% of the 'problem children' in terms of guns. If you didn't satisfactorily complete that training, no gun for you! That would meet the "militia" and "well regulated" parts of the 2nd Amendment-- you go military basic training and were determined to not be a criminal, idiot, or simpleton.
You then get an ID card to prove you were trained, and the government will pay you annually a small amount to buy ammunition to go and practice at a range with. Go with friends, take the family. If you do good shooting you get a plaque or other reward, maybe some cash...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
There is. A .22 LR semi-automatic weapon like the Ruger 10/22 is not "military grade" as an example.
Click to expand...

That is a military grade weapon. It is used by various military to train accurate shooting and for certain sniper activity.

BTW, the dreaded AR15 uses a .223 cartridge, which is just a .22 with extra powder in a bottle cartridge. The M16 is just an AR15 with automatic or sequential fire added. It otherwise uses the same NATO cartridge.

Don't underestimate that little .22!
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
T. A. Gardner said:
There is. A .22 LR semi-automatic weapon like the Ruger 10/22 is not "military grade" as an example.
Click to expand...
That is a military grade weapon. It is used by various military to train accurate shooting and for certain sniper activity....
Click to expand...

Oh boy! This oughta be good.
a040s.gif
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
We have to do a better job of screening the idiots out of the pack. So, it pretty much comes down to licensing sellers and owners. If I had my way, each state would adapt licensing and Title for every weapon in the state.
Click to expand...
So you admit that the BATF is incompetent. No, it is unconstitutional.
Geeko Sportivo said:
Back in the early 1900's it was determined that Automobiles were also deadly in the wrong hands and were a danger of being stolen.
Click to expand...
So are horses. So are matches. So are tools.
Geeko Sportivo said:
The states worked together to create a licensing system for ownership and sales, and a Title system mandatory for every automobile in their state.
Click to expand...
No, they didn't. Each State has it's own licensing laws.
Geeko Sportivo said:
I am not sure where we would all be without it! Can you even imagine?
Click to expand...
Yes. Less taxes and an increase in car theft.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, if every adult 18 something had to do 3 or 4 months of military training (think bootcamp +) that would pretty much do the trick. It'd easily weed out 90% of the 'problem children' in terms of guns. If you didn't satisfactorily complete that training, no gun for you! That would meet the "militia" and "well regulated" parts of the 2nd Amendment-- you go military basic training and were determined to not be a criminal, idiot, or simpleton.
You then get an ID card to prove you were trained, and the government will pay you annually a small amount to buy ammunition to go and practice at a range with. Go with friends, take the family. If you do good shooting you get a plaque or other reward, maybe some cash...
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional. Individuals are not militia.
Why do you want to promote Woke training to get a gun?
 
Into the Night said:
You want to take guns away by government force in the interest of 'safety'. That's tyranny, dumbass.

It's also unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Government force? yeah, like the left shoving things down your throat. Your terms are heavily slanted. You have people on their own turn in their guns. Other nations have done it successfully.
 
Nordberg said:
Government force? yeah, like the left shoving things down your throat. Your terms are heavily slanted. You have people on their own turn in their guns. Other nations have done it successfully.
Click to expand...

Other nations may not have laws that require government compensation for taking people's shit. In the US, an involuntary requirement by government that you hand over your firearms, or anything else, requires compensation.
 
Into the Night said:
Such a law is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It's called eminent domain and is perfectly legal. The US government, assuming that they had some legal means to confiscate everyone's firearms would have to compensate them for the loss. That would run into the trillions of dollars and make taking everyone's guns impossible on cost alone.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's called eminent domain and is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
It is NOT called eminent domain and it is unconstitutional. See Article I and the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments.
T. A. Gardner said:
The US government, assuming that they had some legal means to confiscate everyone's firearms would have to compensate them for the loss.
Click to expand...
They have no legal means. See the sections of the Constitution I just listed.
T. A. Gardner said:
That would run into the trillions of dollars and make taking everyone's guns impossible on cost alone.
Click to expand...
No. It would cause civil war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top