We should treat guns like we treat cars! Yeah!

[eflatminor]

The only radicals I see here is people who think they should be able to overturn elections with firearms.

Yea, that's what I said.

 

[The T]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

I agree..

And you should be forced to buy liability insurance on your gun in case it hurts someone

You should also be required to have an operators license for a gun

Your gun license should be suspended if you are caught drunk

YOU should be forced to PAY to post here.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ummm, guy, that was an act of war... dumb-ass.

Actually, Germany had a pretty high rate of private gun ownership prior to WWII. You know who took most of the German private guns away?

Dwight D. Eisenhower. Thank Pinko, commie...

The delusion tha if the government ever decided they were going to take over and would be opposed by a bunch of rednecks with squirrel guns is laughable. They government will always have more guns, bigger guns and will be better trained with them. And when they do take out the assholes with guns, it is usually to the wild cheers of their neighbors.

Then you have no clue about war or how effective an armed populous is on their own turf.

The simple reality is that the majority of the military will not fight American citizens on American soil. At least not all on one side. The idea that the people themselves cannot overthrow their own government is asinine.

 

[JoeB131]

Ummm, guy, that was an act of war... dumb-ass.

Actually, Germany had a pretty high rate of private gun ownership prior to WWII. You know who took most of the German private guns away?

Dwight D. Eisenhower. Thank Pinko, commie...

The delusion tha if the government ever decided they were going to take over and would be opposed by a bunch of rednecks with squirrel guns is laughable. They government will always have more guns, bigger guns and will be better trained with them. And when they do take out the assholes with guns, it is usually to the wild cheers of their neighbors.

Then you have no clue about war or how effective an armed populous is on their own turf.

The simple reality is that the majority of the military will not fight American citizens on American soil. At least not all on one side. The idea that the people themselves cannot overthrow their own government is asinine.

Actually, every time they've called on the American military to put down assholes with guns, from the Civil War to the Whisky Rebellion to Waco, the military had no problem shooting the assholes.

 

[old navy]

I hate to interupt this argument with news of a Valentine's gift, but yesterday I bought my bride this "Bersa Fights Cancer" pistol. I was hoping that she would give me back the LCR (in second picture) but she says she want to keep both.

Now back to regular programming.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ummm, guy, that was an act of war... dumb-ass.

Actually, Germany had a pretty high rate of private gun ownership prior to WWII. You know who took most of the German private guns away?

Dwight D. Eisenhower. Thank Pinko, commie...

The delusion tha if the government ever decided they were going to take over and would be opposed by a bunch of rednecks with squirrel guns is laughable. They government will always have more guns, bigger guns and will be better trained with them. And when they do take out the assholes with guns, it is usually to the wild cheers of their neighbors.

Then you have no clue about war or how effective an armed populous is on their own turf.

The simple reality is that the majority of the military will not fight American citizens on American soil. At least not all on one side. The idea that the people themselves cannot overthrow their own government is asinine.

Actually, every time they've called on the American military to put down assholes with guns, from the Civil War to the Whisky Rebellion to Waco, the military had no problem shooting the assholes.

I can tell you that it will not happen today and the civil war is not a good example. I was clear when I said 'at least not all on one side.' As in the civil war, there was military on both sides of the battle. Not to mention that is a different case.

At my home station, there is virtually no one that is willing to take up arms against civilians on american soil. I will not and none of the people I know will.

 

[JoeB131]

I can tell you that it will not happen today and the civil war is not a good example. I was clear when I said 'at least not all on one side.' As in the civil war, there was military on both sides of the battle. Not to mention that is a different case.

At my home station, there is virtually no one that is willing to take up arms against civilians on american soil. I will not and none of the people I know will.

So you will disobey a lawful order? Interesting.

Fact is, if you go back to the Militia movement in the 1990's, they were all gung ho with their guns and how they wuz gonna stop the gummit from taking their guns, Clem.

Until McVeigh killed a bunch of kids, and the government moved on them, and they slinked back into their holes.

 

[FA_Q2]

I can tell you that it will not happen today and the civil war is not a good example. I was clear when I said 'at least not all on one side.' As in the civil war, there was military on both sides of the battle. Not to mention that is a different case.

At my home station, there is virtually no one that is willing to take up arms against civilians on american soil. I will not and none of the people I know will.

So you will disobey a lawful order? Interesting.

Fact is, if you go back to the Militia movement in the 1990's, they were all gung ho with their guns and how they wuz gonna stop the gummit from taking their guns, Clem.

Until McVeigh killed a bunch of kids, and the government moved on them, and they slinked back into their holes.

You should read up on what constitutes a lawful order but yes, should I be lawfully ordered to fire upon, support the attack of or in any other way shape or form support a war against American civilians your damn right I will disobey and I expect nothing less from my comrades in arms. If you cannot understand why we would do such a thing then you fail to understand the enormous responsibility that you take when putting on the uniform. We are not unthinking robots. We are men. Men with minds that have the capacity to determine right from wrong.