Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
...and here I thought this was supposed to be "an open and honest debate"I see you were responding to an anti-gun loon that I have on ignore, so all I saw was your post.That's what I said, you are responding to the wrong post.And gun crime there is exceptionally high, indicating that bans, actual and virtual, do not prevent criminals from getting guns.Mexico is far poorer than the US so your "model" fails in every respect.Banning these weapons will make them prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for street thugs and maniacs bent on killing the innocent.Bans have been shown to not work. Machineguns are illegal in Mexico yet they are everywhere. Bans only affect the law abiding as has been shown over and over and over.
The idea therefore fails.
...and here I thought this was supposed to be "an open and honest debate"I see you were responding to an anti-gun loon that I have on ignore, so all I saw was your post.That's what I said, you are responding to the wrong post.And gun crime there is exceptionally high, indicating that bans, actual and virtual, do not prevent criminals from getting guns.Mexico is far poorer than the US so your "model" fails in every respect.Banning these weapons will make them prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for street thugs and maniacs bent on killing the innocent.
The idea therefore fails.
The gun lovers have NO SOLUTIONS AT ALL. Any and all solutions proffered are rejected without consideration.
Gun nuts would prefer slaughter to debate. The gun culture and ancillary blood lust knows no bounds.
Reintroduce the draft!
All males either graduating from school and/or 18 years of age are required to spend 6 months in basic training.
Training will include both firearms and psychological evaluations.
Follow up training of 2 weeks every 2nd year for the next 30 years.
Gun sales will be dependent upon producing certificates of course completion.
Anyone failing either firearms or psychological evals will have to apply through the courts for an exemption if they want to obtain a firearm.
In essence this is similar to the Swiss system that works so well.
Only those who are either incompetent with firearms or who are identified as being mentally unstable will have any problem obtaining firearms.
Everyone else will be fully trained in how to use them properly.
It also does not include people that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.
Please point out my post where I said "ban everything" or lay off the hyperbole and lies....and here I thought this was supposed to be "an open and honest debate"I see you were responding to an anti-gun loon that I have on ignore, so all I saw was your post.That's what I said, you are responding to the wrong post.And gun crime there is exceptionally high, indicating that bans, actual and virtual, do not prevent criminals from getting guns.Mexico is far poorer than the US so your "model" fails in every respect.
The idea therefore fails.
The gun lovers have NO SOLUTIONS AT ALL. Any and all solutions proffered are rejected without consideration.
Gun nuts would prefer slaughter to debate. The gun culture and ancillary blood lust knows no bounds.
Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made. Your solution is to ban everything. Feel free to show us any place on Earth where a ban has worked. The worst mass murder with a firearm was in Norway where guns are heavily regulated so your argument holds no water.
If you have a legitimate point to make then by all means do so, but to just say "gun bans are good and you are all wrong" when the evidence clearly shows you to be wrong, merely shows that you truly HAVE NO INTEREST in a honest debate.
It also does not include people that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.
So far, I have yet to see any suggestion that meets the criteria laid out on the OP.
Please point out my post where I said "ban everything" or lay off the hyperbole and lies....and here I thought this was supposed to be "an open and honest debate"I see you were responding to an anti-gun loon that I have on ignore, so all I saw was your post.That's what I said, you are responding to the wrong post.And gun crime there is exceptionally high, indicating that bans, actual and virtual, do not prevent criminals from getting guns.
The idea therefore fails.
The gun lovers have NO SOLUTIONS AT ALL. Any and all solutions proffered are rejected without consideration.
Gun nuts would prefer slaughter to debate. The gun culture and ancillary blood lust knows no bounds.
Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made. Your solution is to ban everything. Feel free to show us any place on Earth where a ban has worked. The worst mass murder with a firearm was in Norway where guns are heavily regulated so your argument holds no water.
If you have a legitimate point to make then by all means do so, but to just say "gun bans are good and you are all wrong" when the evidence clearly shows you to be wrong, merely shows that you truly HAVE NO INTEREST in a honest debate.
The criteria of the OP was "an open and honest debate".It also does not include people that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.
So far, I have yet to see any suggestion that meets the criteria laid out on the OP.
I've already asked that question without response.Please point out my post where I said "ban everything" or lay off the hyperbole and lies....and here I thought this was supposed to be "an open and honest debate"I see you were responding to an anti-gun loon that I have on ignore, so all I saw was your post.That's what I said, you are responding to the wrong post.
The gun lovers have NO SOLUTIONS AT ALL. Any and all solutions proffered are rejected without consideration.
Gun nuts would prefer slaughter to debate. The gun culture and ancillary blood lust knows no bounds.
Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made. Your solution is to ban everything. Feel free to show us any place on Earth where a ban has worked. The worst mass murder with a firearm was in Norway where guns are heavily regulated so your argument holds no water.
If you have a legitimate point to make then by all means do so, but to just say "gun bans are good and you are all wrong" when the evidence clearly shows you to be wrong, merely shows that you truly HAVE NO INTEREST in a honest debate.
Define "Well Regulated".
I've already asked that question without response.Please point out my post where I said "ban everything" or lay off the hyperbole and lies....and here I thought this was supposed to be "an open and honest debate"I see you were responding to an anti-gun loon that I have on ignore, so all I saw was your post.
The gun lovers have NO SOLUTIONS AT ALL. Any and all solutions proffered are rejected without consideration.
Gun nuts would prefer slaughter to debate. The gun culture and ancillary blood lust knows no bounds.
Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made. Your solution is to ban everything. Feel free to show us any place on Earth where a ban has worked. The worst mass murder with a firearm was in Norway where guns are heavily regulated so your argument holds no water.
If you have a legitimate point to make then by all means do so, but to just say "gun bans are good and you are all wrong" when the evidence clearly shows you to be wrong, merely shows that you truly HAVE NO INTEREST in a honest debate.
Define "Well Regulated".
Only partially, as it is voluntary.Mine does.It also does not include people that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.
So far, I have yet to see any suggestion that meets the criteria laid out on the OP.
An organized group under the scrutiny of government. Not a bunch of your beer buddies cruising around in a Dodge Durango.I've already asked that question without response.Please point out my post where I said "ban everything" or lay off the hyperbole and lies....and here I thought this was supposed to be "an open and honest debate"
The gun lovers have NO SOLUTIONS AT ALL. Any and all solutions proffered are rejected without consideration.
Gun nuts would prefer slaughter to debate. The gun culture and ancillary blood lust knows no bounds.
Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made. Your solution is to ban everything. Feel free to show us any place on Earth where a ban has worked. The worst mass murder with a firearm was in Norway where guns are heavily regulated so your argument holds no water.
If you have a legitimate point to make then by all means do so, but to just say "gun bans are good and you are all wrong" when the evidence clearly shows you to be wrong, merely shows that you truly HAVE NO INTEREST in a honest debate.
Define "Well Regulated".
I know what the Founders defined it as, I want to hear what you think it means.
Only partially, as it is voluntary.Mine does.It also does not include people that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.
So far, I have yet to see any suggestion that meets the criteria laid out on the OP.
It certainly does not prevent criminals from buying guns from people who won't run a check, or stealing guns or whatever.
Like I said -- I have no issue with people voluntary running background checks on a private sale - I only stated that there is some capacity to do this already.This is one way to do it that doesn't infringe on anyone rights, and does not generate a national gun registry.Only partially, as it is voluntary.Mine does.It also does not include people that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.
So far, I have yet to see any suggestion that meets the criteria laid out on the OP.
It certainly does not prevent criminals from buying guns from people who won't run a check, or stealing guns or whatever.
Capisce?
An organized group under the scrutiny of government. Not a bunch of your beer buddies cruising around in a Dodge Durango.I've already asked that question without response.Please point out my post where I said "ban everything" or lay off the hyperbole and lies.Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made. Your solution is to ban everything. Feel free to show us any place on Earth where a ban has worked. The worst mass murder with a firearm was in Norway where guns are heavily regulated so your argument holds no water.
If you have a legitimate point to make then by all means do so, but to just say "gun bans are good and you are all wrong" when the evidence clearly shows you to be wrong, merely shows that you truly HAVE NO INTEREST in a honest debate.
Define "Well Regulated".
I know what the Founders defined it as, I want to hear what you think it means.
Like I said -- I have no issue with people voluntary running background checks on a private sale - I only stated that there is some capacity to do this already.This is one way to do it that doesn't infringe on anyone rights, and does not generate a national gun registry.Only partially, as it is voluntary.Mine does.It also does not include people that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.
So far, I have yet to see any suggestion that meets the criteria laid out on the OP.
It certainly does not prevent criminals from buying guns from people who won't run a check, or stealing guns or whatever.
Capisce?
This means you didn't sell the gun to the crimnal, right? Success!No, there isn't. That's the whole point I'm making. Criminals WON'T go to a gun store to do a background checkLike I said -- I have no issue with people voluntary running background checks on a private sale - I only stated that there is some capacity to do this already.This is one way to do it that doesn't infringe on anyone rights, and does not generate a national gun registry.Only partially, as it is voluntary.Mine does.It also does not include people that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
So far, I have yet to see any suggestion that meets the criteria laid out on the OP.
It certainly does not prevent criminals from buying guns from people who won't run a check, or stealing guns or whatever.
Capisce?
I did not disagree with your idea.Here I am giving you a method to do what you say and you're resisting it. Why?
The only way the requirement for universal background checks can be enforced is thru universal registration.Further, I would have no problem with the background check being mandatory, so long as it was free and no gun registration was included.
