Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[Night Strike]

She has a point actually, and this is what I was trying to tell you earlier. Look back on American history at all the political factions who refused to compromise. How many of them are left today? Even the women's leagues who passed a new Constitutional amendment -prohibition - have disappeared, and each time it was because they refused to compromise. Right up to the end the prohibitioners were asked to compromise, and they wouldn't. And now they are dust. You can keep some things, but if you refuse to budge an inch you'll lose everything. Another example of this is the issue of "state's rights." The South refused to compromise, and now everyone is under Federal authority.
I was just trying to warn you.

Why must we continue to compromise in turning over more of our Constitutionally protected freedoms over to the federal government? Does banning automatic and military-grade weapons and mandatory registration of all guns owned not count as a pretty sweeping compromise? Why must people continue to compromise how they are allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights? And when will that compromise end? Remember, we already tried to ban "semi-automatic weapons that look scary" and it did nothing to curb gun violence. So what's the difference between Obama signing such legislation and Clinton signing it?

[Night Strike]

And YOUR attitude is a big reason why it will be those utterly opposed to guns making the decision. Because, when push comes to shove, the safety of my child supercedes your right to have a gun... period. And when you refuse to accept that there is a threat, when there is, then you are part of the problem, not the solution and you leave the solution to those who see the problem as simplistic, that is those who see guns as the problem.

Excuse me? I don't want to harm your child, so why do you magically get the authority to take away my guns?

and where, exactly did I even hint that I wanted to take YOUR guns away?????

When you stated that "the safety of my child supersedes your right to have a gun... period". That's way more than a simple hint. My rights end at the point that I harm someone else, they do not end just because you're scared that something might happen to someone (specific threats not withstanding).

[2dimes]

Clarification.



The suicide stats... For or against guns in those houses?

[Night Strike]

The gun control debate has once again come to the forefront of domestic politics in the wake of the terrible tragedy which occurred in Newtown, Connecticut. People on both sides of the argument are spouting their usual litanies of talking points in anticipation of a renewed “assault weapons” ban which will likely be debated next month on Capitol Hill. President Obama has expressed support for the proposed bill and has also made public comments suggesting that he would like to see tighter restrictions on handguns as well. Mission creep has a way of working itself into even the modest limitations placed on personal freedom for the sake of “public safety.” This is something everyone should be anxious about, but in particular women should be especially concerned.

I work in the gun business. I have coached many women as they fired a gun for the first time in my store’s gun range. I have also sold a lot of them their first firearms. Their primary reason for deciding to purchase a gun is usually the same: they don’t want to be easy targets. It is sadly ironic that Nancy Lanza was killed by her own son with her own firearms, but it doesn’t change the fact that guns are used defensively millions of times a year according to a widely cited study conducted by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Nancy’s situation was anomalous.

I have become acquainted with many women who protected themselves and their households with a legally owned firearm. Just a couple of weeks ago a would-be home invader tried to break into the home of a young housewife I know. She yelled at the man and told him to go away, but he completely ignored her. His pants were around his ankles and her daughter was sleeping in the other room. Her husband was also asleep and did not hear her screaming. She fetched her nine millimeter handgun and pointed it at the perpetrator through a window. The man quickly fled and was later caught by the police. The moral of the story is that it is unwise to threaten a mother and her children when she is holding a Glock.

The Newtown massacre is a horrific and unusual counterexample of that situation. All of the victims were unarmed women and young children. This is the kind of situation that sickos like Adam Lanza usually look for. They want easy targets and high body counts. Texas Governor Rick Perry pointed this out when he suggested allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons. Perhaps this solution is too extreme for a majority of Americans, but I personally wouldn’t have a problem with it. It wouldn’t have helped Nancy very much, but it might have saved the lives of many of Adam’s other victims. At the very least I would argue that placing more armed security guards or police officers in schools across the country might be a step in the right direction.

Like most murderers, Adam Lanza was a man. In fact, most violent crimes are perpetrated by men. That means women involved in violent crimes are, of course, usually victims. Unfortunately, women are more often than not at a natural disadvantage in physical confrontations with men. Fair or not, it is the truth. Nevertheless, the playing field is quickly leveled when a woman pulls a concealed handgun out of her purse and points it at her would be attacker in self-defense. It is a very effective way to turn the tables, and it at least means an even fight if the attacker is also armed.

I am confident that almost everyone reading this knows at least one woman who has been the victim of a violent crime (i.e. assault, battery, rape, murder, etc.). Women who survive violent crimes are often left with heavily damaged psyches, and aggregately this undermines efforts to create any kind of social equality between the sexes. Guns empower women with the ability to defend themselves against violent attacks, which is why the right to bear arms is a critical women’s rights issue. Sadly, there are still too few American women out there who realize this. In many countries around the world women are brutalized and sometimes even murdered with near impunity on a daily basis. I wish every single one of those poor women could shoot their attackers dead, but they don’t have a “Second Amendment” which makes that possible.

If the headlines are any indication, single women are uniquely at risk of becoming targets for would be attackers. Their assailants often include jealous ex-boyfriends, creepy strangers in bars, stalking coworkers, and the like. A beautiful, intelligent single lady named Heather recently informed me that she decided to purchase a firearm from my store after her ex-boyfriend began stalking her, even after she’d applied for a restraining order. He followed her home one evening and accosted her as she was trying to enter her apartment. Heather barely managed to ward him off with a knife, get inside, lock the door and call the police. He was gone by the time they arrived. The news is chock-full of stories like this that didn’t end quite so fortunately. Personally, I am elated that Heather is now a gun owner.

Liberals deride conservatives for waging an imaginary “war on women” that is centered mostly around access to free birth control and abortion services. That is, to quote Vice President Biden, a bunch of “malarkey.” Conservative men do in fact care deeply about women, especially when it comes to their safety, and certainly believe they should be empowered. I know this is true every time I see a loving husband, boyfriend, father or brother bring his wife, girlfriend, daughter or sister to my gun store to obtain a concealed carry permit or buy a gun. I know this is true every time a female shooter smiles at me when, after heeding my patient tutelage, one of her bullets rips through the bullseye of a paper target for the first time. If you ask me, liberals seem to care more about evading the potential responsibilities of parenthood than empowering or protecting women.

Banning rifles with certain features, which is by itself a feckless endeavor, will likely be the first of many steps the left will attempt in order to gradually implement a de facto ban on firearms in the United States. Liberals make little effort to hide their intent to accomplish this. One need only look at gun laws in liberal bastions like Chicago or New York City, places which have no shortage of violent crimes involving guns despite comprehensive restrictions on gun ownership, to see what their ultimate goal is. In the end this leaves American women at the mercy of an overburdened criminal justice system instead of empowering them to defend themselves and their children with firearms that they are constitutionally entitled to own. Politicians in Washington have all the armed security they will ever need thanks to taxpayers. Most women in this country can’t afford such a luxury.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-great-equalizer-women-and-the-right-to-bear-arms/

[_sabotage_]

So a guy was taking a leak outside the woman's house and she needed a gun to get rid of him? Millions of guns are used in self-defense each year?

Please at least publish an unbiased article if you wish to promote/defend a position.

[codeblue1018]

So a guy was taking a leak outside the woman's house and she needed a gun to get rid of him? Millions of guns are used in self-defense each year?

Please at least publish an unbiased article if you wish to promote/defend a position.

Goes back to my point of training. "Most" don't even know when it's permissible to use a firearm. "Most" don't even know the mechanics, shooting stance, grip, aim and in conjunction to being under extreme stress: you train as you'd react under these stressors. Without that, good luck.

[Juan_Bottom]

She has a point actually, and this is what I was trying to tell you earlier. Look back on American history at all the political factions who refused to compromise. How many of them are left today? Even the women's leagues who passed a new Constitutional amendment -prohibition - have disappeared, and each time it was because they refused to compromise. Right up to the end the prohibitioners were asked to compromise, and they wouldn't. And now they are dust. You can keep some things, but if you refuse to budge an inch you'll lose everything. Another example of this is the issue of "state's rights." The South refused to compromise, and now everyone is under Federal authority.
I was just trying to warn you.

Why must we continue to compromise in turning over more of our Constitutionally protected freedoms over to the federal government? Does banning automatic and military-grade weapons and mandatory registration of all guns owned not count as a pretty sweeping compromise? Why must people continue to compromise how they are allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights? And when will that compromise end? Remember, we already tried to ban "semi-automatic weapons that look scary" and it did nothing to curb gun violence. So what's the difference between Obama signing such legislation and Clinton signing it?

The compromise ends when the violence ends. As I said, random child-shootings are not the cost of Constitutional freedom. They just aren't. There is no way this country would have been founded on that principle; nobody can be so monstrous.

The Assault Weapons ban wasn't the type of compromise we're seeking. It doesn't address the problems of reality, just hypotheticals. You still have no training requirements, 40% of guns are still sold through private, unlicensed sellers, and most gun violence is dished out with hand guns. The Assault Rifle ban was from a different era of gun violence, when we had the North Hollywood Shootout. The bank robbers had assault rifles and body armor, and the police couldn't stop them. That was a year after the ban hit Congress, but the point is that it was a different time.


I'm really glad other people are agreeing that there should be training requirements for gun owners.

EDIT: and gun owners are not being asked to "turn Constitutional Freedom over to the Federal Government." Their being asked to work with your fellow Americans to create a safer country.

[Night Strike]

She has a point actually, and this is what I was trying to tell you earlier. Look back on American history at all the political factions who refused to compromise. How many of them are left today? Even the women's leagues who passed a new Constitutional amendment -prohibition - have disappeared, and each time it was because they refused to compromise. Right up to the end the prohibitioners were asked to compromise, and they wouldn't. And now they are dust. You can keep some things, but if you refuse to budge an inch you'll lose everything. Another example of this is the issue of "state's rights." The South refused to compromise, and now everyone is under Federal authority.
I was just trying to warn you.

Why must we continue to compromise in turning over more of our Constitutionally protected freedoms over to the federal government? Does banning automatic and military-grade weapons and mandatory registration of all guns owned not count as a pretty sweeping compromise? Why must people continue to compromise how they are allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights? And when will that compromise end? Remember, we already tried to ban "semi-automatic weapons that look scary" and it did nothing to curb gun violence. So what's the difference between Obama signing such legislation and Clinton signing it?

The compromise ends when the violence ends. As I said, random child-shootings are not the cost of Constitutional freedom. They just aren't. There is no way this country would have been founded on that principle; nobody can be so monstrous.

The Assault Weapons ban wasn't the type of compromise we're seeking. It doesn't address the problems of reality, just hypotheticals. You still have no training requirements, 40% of guns are still sold through private, unlicensed sellers, and most gun violence is dished out with hand guns. The Assault Rifle ban was from a different era of gun violence, when we had the North Hollywood Shootout. The bank robbers had assault rifles and body armor, and the police couldn't stop them. That was a year after the ban hit Congress, but the point is that it was a different time.


I'm really glad other people are agreeing that there should be training requirements for gun owners.

What other right requires massive governmental regulation and requirements? Where are the requirements that people take classes to vote correctly, speak fairly, and report stories accurately? Each of those requirements should be up to the individual as responsible members of society if that's how they choose to spend their resources, not mandated by the federal government.

And why should people who have never committed a crime be punished by having their rights removed due to people who have committed crimes? Why aren't we talking about banning all cars or alcohol because of drunk drivers? Why do you go after guns when crimes are committed, but not after all the other weapons people have used in crimes? Why do law-abiding citizens have to be unconstitutionally punished due to the acts of criminals? People will always use their freedoms to violate the rights of others, so how is the government taking away rights from lab-abiding citizens more acceptable?

[AAFitz]

She has a point actually, and this is what I was trying to tell you earlier. Look back on American history at all the political factions who refused to compromise. How many of them are left today? Even the women's leagues who passed a new Constitutional amendment -prohibition - have disappeared, and each time it was because they refused to compromise. Right up to the end the prohibitioners were asked to compromise, and they wouldn't. And now they are dust. You can keep some things, but if you refuse to budge an inch you'll lose everything. Another example of this is the issue of "state's rights." The South refused to compromise, and now everyone is under Federal authority.
I was just trying to warn you.

Why must we continue to compromise in turning over more of our Constitutionally protected freedoms over to the federal government? Does banning automatic and military-grade weapons and mandatory registration of all guns owned not count as a pretty sweeping compromise? Why must people continue to compromise how they are allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights? And when will that compromise end? Remember, we already tried to ban "semi-automatic weapons that look scary" and it did nothing to curb gun violence. So what's the difference between Obama signing such legislation and Clinton signing it?

The compromise ends when the violence ends. As I said, random child-shootings are not the cost of Constitutional freedom. They just aren't. There is no way this country would have been founded on that principle; nobody can be so monstrous.

The Assault Weapons ban wasn't the type of compromise we're seeking. It doesn't address the problems of reality, just hypotheticals. You still have no training requirements, 40% of guns are still sold through private, unlicensed sellers, and most gun violence is dished out with hand guns. The Assault Rifle ban was from a different era of gun violence, when we had the North Hollywood Shootout. The bank robbers had assault rifles and body armor, and the police couldn't stop them. That was a year after the ban hit Congress, but the point is that it was a different time.


I'm really glad other people are agreeing that there should be training requirements for gun owners.

What other right requires massive governmental regulation and requirements? Where are the requirements that people take classes to vote correctly, speak fairly, and report stories accurately? Each of those requirements should be up to the individual as responsible members of society if that's how they choose to spend their resources, not mandated by the federal government.

And why should people who have never committed a crime be punished by having their rights removed due to people who have committed crimes? Why aren't we talking about banning all cars or alcohol because of drunk drivers? Why do you go after guns when crimes are committed, but not after all the other weapons people have used in crimes? Why do law-abiding citizens have to be unconstitutionally punished due to the acts of criminals? People will always use their freedoms to violate the rights of others, so how is the government taking away rights from lab-abiding citizens more acceptable?

You have no more an explicit right to a semi-automatic assault rifle, than you do a nuclear weapon. I don't care how many crimes you haven't committed.

Further, there are many types of alcohol and cars that are absolutely illegal and they are some of the more heavily regulated products around.

Here are some links if youd like to discuss alcohol and car fatalities. Also, you can make a thread about it here.

http://www.madd.org/drunk-drivingMADD - Drunk Driving
Drunk Driving. In 2011, 9,878 people were killed and approximately 350,000 were injured. Each crash, each death, each injury impacts not only the person in the crash ...
www.madd.org/drunk-driving - Cached
www.madrunkdrivingdefense.com/drunk-driving.htm - Cached
www.massdui.com/drunk-driving-laws - Cached
www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrinkingAndDriving.html - Cached
www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/drunkdriving.html - Cached
www.madd.org - Cached
www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving - Cached


Also, God forbid a drunk driver smashes into a school tomorrow and kills 27 people...I bet we start talking about that too.

Do you honestly believe the things you write...its a joke, right?

But one more final question, should the Federal Government regulate the drunk driving laws even further?
Are you in support of further measures such as ignition breathalizers for offenders, or even everyone?
Or, do you have other ideas how we can also save lives. Great strides have been made with regulation, and enforcement, but if you think the Government is holding back too much, Id certainly be interested to see what actions you think they should take to improve our safety. Explain here, or make another thread about it. You mention it, so I assume you are passionate about it and deeply care about the issue.

You wouldnt just throw in a random bait and switch to draw attention from the tragedy in CT the other day, would you?

[Juan_Bottom]

What other right requires massive governmental regulation and requirements?

What other right involves death machines?

Where are the requirements that people take classes to vote correctly, speak fairly, and report stories accurately? Each of those requirements should be up to the individual as responsible members of society if that's how they choose to spend their resources, not mandated by the federal government.

The personal responsibility argument is bullshit. I'm sure that you're very responsible with your pistols, but that argument falls to bits when you're talking about someone who's mental and violent. The "personal responsibility" argument assumes that there are no Jared Loughners out there.

And why should people who have never committed a crime be punished by having their rights removed due to people who have committed crimes? Why aren't we talking about banning all cars or alcohol because of drunk drivers?

I'm pro drugs, and pro cars. Neither are made with the intention of killing something or someone. A car's function isn't murder.

And remember where this is coming from, I've never done a single drug in my life. I don't even know what alcohol tastes like.

Why do law-abiding citizens have to be unconstitutionally punished due to the acts of criminals? People will always use their freedoms to violate the rights of others, so how is the government taking away rights from lab-abiding citizens more acceptable?

Because your "right" is enabling killers, and because you're unwilling to take any steps to stop that on your own. If the NRA was willing to shut down gun shows, make unreported gun sales a crime, and allow gun sales taxes to fund training & licensing programs that would be cool, and there would be no discussion. But the gun-enthusiast lobby isn't actually interested in responsible practices. What they want is "individual responsibility" so they can distance themselves when a guy like Jared Laughner finds a hand gun and uses it.

[Night Strike]

What's a joke about having a desire to protect our Constitutional rights and freedoms?

And you REALLY thing there is no difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a nuke when it comes to individual rights?

[AAFitz]

What's a joke about having a desire to protect our Constitutional rights and freedoms?

And you REALLY thing there is no difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a nuke when it comes to individual rights?

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

Neither existed at the time, and both do unbelievable damage, not that you care about those things.

I addressed your concerns that the Government isnt doing enough to stop drunk driving though. Im prepared to discuss that at length any time you're ready.

[Night Strike]

The personal responsibility argument is bullshit. I'm sure that you're very responsible with your pistols, but that argument falls to bits when you're talking about someone who's mental and violent. The "personal responsibility" argument assumes that there are no Jared Loughners out there.

And yet it was the liberals who demanded that no person can be involuntarily treated for mental illnesses without first committing a crime. If their first crime is to kill people, then that's what happens with such a system. You don't get to then go punish all the other people who don't have mental illnesses and haven't committed crimes just because the liberal policy of the past has backfired. You have no right to demand that the government take away the rights of other people simply because you don't like the right.

[AAFitz]

The personal responsibility argument is bullshit. I'm sure that you're very responsible with your pistols, but that argument falls to bits when you're talking about someone who's mental and violent. The "personal responsibility" argument assumes that there are no Jared Loughners out there.

And yet it was the liberals who demanded that no person can be involuntarily treated for mental illnesses without first committing a crime. If their first crime is to kill people, then that's what happens with such a system. You don't get to then go punish all the other people who don't have mental illnesses and haven't committed crimes just because the liberal policy of the past has backfired. You have no right to demand that the government take away the rights of other people simply because you don't like the right.

From what Ive seen in your posts...you should support that measure.

And again, right to bear arms hardly specifically applies to a semi-automatic rifle. There is clearly some line as to where right to bear arms excludes some arms, and that line could not have been drawn, or implied when the constitutional right you keep referencing was written.

They didnt exist, which is why they allowed for amendments to address changes in technology....and duh.

[Night Strike]

What's a joke about having a desire to protect our Constitutional rights and freedoms?

And you REALLY thing there is no difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a nuke when it comes to individual rights?

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

Neither existed at the time, and both do unbelievable damage, not that you care about those things.

Knives can do unbelievable damage, so why aren't they banned? Cars can do unbelievable damage, so why aren't they banned? It's the PERSON committing the crime who should be punished for the crime, not all people who own the tool used.

[Phatscotty]

What's a joke about having a desire to protect our Constitutional rights and freedoms?

And you REALLY thing there is no difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a nuke when it comes to individual rights?

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

Neither existed at the time, and both do unbelievable damage, not that you care about those things.

No there isn't a difference. Semi-automatics make it easier for people to defend themselves better, period.

Your assumption is bullshit and backed up by more bullshit, because automobiles and abortions did not exist at the time either, and both do unbelievable damage.

Try to get abortions outlawed and ban all cars that can do over 70 mph, and then you will be intellectually honest with your comments.

[AAFitz]

What's a joke about having a desire to protect our Constitutional rights and freedoms?

And you REALLY thing there is no difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a nuke when it comes to individual rights?

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

Neither existed at the time, and both do unbelievable damage, not that you care about those things.

Knives can do unbelievable damage, so why aren't they banned? Cars can do unbelievable damage, so why aren't they banned? It's the PERSON committing the crime who should be punished for the crime, not all people who own the tool used.

Yes they can, and some types of knives are banned. If you think all should be banned, Ill most likely agree with you on some of your points, but I could make the same argument for a hammer, and a screwdriver and again duh...

However, with a gun, the amount of damage they can do, is staggeringly higher than with those other vehicles and other such tools, so obviously, they should be regulated, just as knives, and especially cars are regulated.

You understand there are tests, and cars are heavily regulated right. You cant just build a car and go drive it. It needs to conform to a rigorous safety standard, that helps keep people safer. Further, the more dangerous the vehicle, the more tests and requirements are made of the driver....

[AAFitz]

What's a joke about having a desire to protect our Constitutional rights and freedoms?

And you REALLY thing there is no difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a nuke when it comes to individual rights?

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

Neither existed at the time, and both do unbelievable damage, not that you care about those things.

No there isn't a difference. Semi-automatics make it easier for people to defend themselves better, period.

Your assumption is bullshit and backed up by more bullshit, because automobiles and abortions did not exist at the time either, and both do unbelievable damage.

No, yours is bullshit. Especially as explained and ignored...cars and certain types are absolutely illegal for being too unsafe.

And a fully automatic granade launcher would make it even more easy to defend myself...that doesnt mean the constitution specifically allows for it, any more than your semi-auto teddy bear. I understand you want it, but that doesnt mean you have any right to it, nor can you make any argument legally that you do....and obviously so.

Also, your buddy Nightstrike brought up the autos and the knives and such. I was mostly making your point that that analogy is bullshit too. Thanks for confirming.

[Phatscotty]

a semi-automatic rifle is just a rifle. Rifles were around at the time. A rifle is an arm. We have the right to bear rifles as arms

Deal with it

[Night Strike]

What's a joke about having a desire to protect our Constitutional rights and freedoms?

And you REALLY thing there is no difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a nuke when it comes to individual rights?

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

Neither existed at the time, and both do unbelievable damage, not that you care about those things.

Knives can do unbelievable damage, so why aren't they banned? Cars can do unbelievable damage, so why aren't they banned? It's the PERSON committing the crime who should be punished for the crime, not all people who own the tool used.

Yes they can, and some types of knives are banned. If you think all should be banned, Ill most likely agree with you on some of your points, but I could make the same argument for a hammer, and a screwdriver and again duh...

However, with a gun, the amount of damage they can do, is staggeringly higher than with those other vehicles and other such tools, so obviously, they should be regulated, just as knives, and especially cars are regulated.

You understand there are tests, and cars are heavily regulated right. You cant just build a car and go drive it. It needs to conform to a rigorous safety standard, that helps keep people safer. Further, the more dangerous the vehicle, the more tests and requirements are made of the driver....

You're right, let's ban anything that could potentially be used to hurt or kill other people and force every citizen to sit in a bubble while the government-approved individuals do whatever the society needs to survive. It doesn't matter if the citizens have a right to own it: the government has dictated that they're too dangerous for people who are not members of the government to have because the government knows what is best for everybody and can protect every person 24/7. Only the government can protect people....individuals cannot be trusted to protect themselves and must wait for the government to respond if they are in danger.

And guns are the most regulated product in existence and by far the most regulated Constitutional right. Why are MORE regulations absolutely necessary? Why is your answer to EVERY problem to demand that the government get bigger and take away even more rights of people? Do you live in a fantasy where the government provides every single thing you need or want out of life?

[stahrgazer]

From what Ive seen in your posts...you should support that measure.

And again, right to bear arms hardly specifically applies to a semi-automatic rifle. There is clearly some line as to where right to bear arms excludes some arms, and that line could not have been drawn, or implied when the constitutional right you keep referencing was written.

They didnt exist, which is why they allowed for amendments to address changes in technology....and duh.

Actually, the way the Constitution was written up, it does guarantee rights to the people except for powers that were given to the federal government, which are precise and specific.

As for the person who wrote about cars requiring tests, etc... only if you plan to drive them on public roads. If those cars remain on private roads/private property, you need no license, no registration, no insurance. Similarly, if you don't plan to carry a gun off your property, you do not need a permit to carry.

People drive cars without licenses, insurance, registrations, all the time, and cause some powerful accidents with high mortality rates at times when they do. But no one is saying, "ban cars."

The easiest "feel good" but "doesn't solve the problem" fix our government has or much of the populace can think of is to ban some guns or ban some ammo, or both, so that's probably gonna happen; but it won't fix the problem. No law will prevent human stupidity or evil and both are difficult to be sure of until you see them in action.

[Phatscotty]

Ya know, there have been slaves who did not mind slavery. Now sure, that doesn't fit the images many people flash to when their mind registers slavery. But I'm not talking about the runaway slave getting punished, or the female slave being taken every night by the owner, but I am talking about the older slaves, the slaves that had been trained for too long to think any other way, the slave who is comfortable in the fact he no longer needs to slave to plant and grow and produce the food, he only needs to consume it at this point, the slave who believed in being a good slave, the slave who would narc out other slaves, just to get an extra biscuit for dinner. They didn't have to do as much work as the younger slaves, and after a while they think they are the head slave, and can boss around other slaves in the name of the slave-owner. The old slave thinks he has it is easy and can relax more, and he thinks his job is to run the plantation when the master is not around, and tell the other slaves how to live and what is the wrong way to do something and that his way is the best way.

That's who you remind me of Fitz. The slave that kissed their masters ass and sold out all their brothers for an an extra biscuit.

[Symmetry]

Ya know, there have been slaves who did not mind slavery. Now sure, that doesn't fit the images many people flash to when their mind registers slavery. But I'm not talking about the runaway slave getting punished, or the female slave being taken every night by the owner, but I am talking about the older slaves, the slaves that had been trained for too long to think any other way, the slave who is comfortable in the fact he no longer needs to slave to plant and grow and produce the food, he only needs to consume it at this point, the slave who believed in being a good slave, the slave who would narc out other slaves, just to get an extra biscuit for dinner. They didn't have to do as much work as the younger slaves, and after a while they think they are the head slave, and can boss around other slaves in the name of the slave-owner. The old slave thinks he has it is easy and can relax more, and he thinks his job is to run the plantation when the master is not around, and tell the other slaves how to live and what is the wrong way to do something and that his way is the best way.

That's who you remind me of Fitz. The slave that kissed their masters ass and sold out all their brothers for an an extra biscuit.

A new low, Scotty.

[Phatscotty]

Ya know, there have been slaves who did not mind slavery. Now sure, that doesn't fit the images many people flash to when their mind registers slavery. But I'm not talking about the runaway slave getting punished, or the female slave being taken every night by the owner, but I am talking about the older slaves, the slaves that had been trained for too long to think any other way, the slave who is comfortable in the fact he no longer needs to slave to plant and grow and produce the food, he only needs to consume it at this point, the slave who believed in being a good slave, the slave who would narc out other slaves, just to get an extra biscuit for dinner. They didn't have to do as much work as the younger slaves, and after a while they think they are the head slave, and can boss around other slaves in the name of the slave-owner. The old slave thinks he has it is easy and can relax more, and he thinks his job is to run the plantation when the master is not around, and tell the other slaves how to live and what is the wrong way to do something and that his way is the best way.

That's who you remind me of Fitz. The slave that kissed their masters ass and sold out all their brothers for an an extra biscuit.

A new low, Scotty.

AAftiz pushing as hard as he can to take away American's rights....yes, I'm aware of the low....

You get away with it Symm because you are a Brit and don't have a clue, but not him

[HapSmo19]

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

You would have a point if it read "The right of the people to keep and bear flintlock muskets shall not be infringed." But it doesn't, so you dont, because you're a cunt.
In defense of country, tyranny or self, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, douche.