CDZ Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?

[Pogo]

Not in favor of a gun registry, national or otherwise.

It's no one's business how many or what kind of firearms I own.

It is if they're on the receiving end of a bullet... I mean it can't get much more personal than that.

Think about it.

LOL.....Pogo thinks criminals will register their guns.

Link to where I said that is ................ where?












Exactly. Learn to read.

 

[Pogo]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Cars are not guaranteed to you in the BOR. You do not have the right to own a car. Driving is a privilege.

Y'all just love to compare them to firearms.

As I just said --- the comparison is not so convenient when it works the other way .... is it?

 

[Cassandro]

Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Read the OP again, slowly.

Oh sorry, lol Yes your right, someone could get into that database

You hyenas are going to laugh yourselves into a dictatorship some day...and never understand how it happened.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If you're on the receiving end of my bullet then you must have been a threat to me, my family or my property.

If you don't want to get shot, then don't do stupid shit that will cause you to get shot.

Izzat right.

What kind of "stupid shit" were the folks on the receiving end of Robert Dear's bullets doing? All I know is one of them was a cop, trying to stop him. How stupid, huh?

What kind of "stupid shit" were those on the receiving end of Jared Loughner's bullets? Or Adam Lanza's bullets? Or Wade Michael Page's bullets? Jiverly Wong's? James Holmes'? John Houser's? Seung Hui-Cho's?

I think I know what Carl Robert's receiving ends were guilty of -- being Amish girls.

I was talking about YOU doing stupid shit to get yourself shot. Of course there will have innocent people who die in this country be it by bullet, knife, hammer, car...etc, it's unfortunate, but that's the way the world is and always has been.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not in favor of a gun registry, national or otherwise.

It's no one's business how many or what kind of firearms I own.

It is if they're on the receiving end of a bullet... I mean it can't get much more personal than that.

Think about it.

LOL.....Pogo thinks criminals will register their guns.

Link to where I said that is ................ where?












Exactly. Learn to read.

If you end up getting shot most likely you deserved it,or it will be at the hands of a criminal who of course wont be registering his stolen firearm.

 

[Pogo]

Not in favor of a gun registry, national or otherwise.

It's no one's business how many or what kind of firearms I own.

It is if they're on the receiving end of a bullet... I mean it can't get much more personal than that.

Think about it.

LOL.....Pogo thinks criminals will register their guns.

Link to where I said that is ................ where?












Exactly. Learn to read.

If you end up getting shot most likely you deserved it,or it will be at the hands of a criminal who of course wont be registering his stolen firearm.

So you have no such link.

I thought not.

Meanwhile, for this new place to which you're moving your goalposts, I am compelled to reiterate:

What kind of "stupid shit" were the folks on the receiving end of Robert Dear's bullets doing? All I know is one of them was a cop, trying to stop him. How stupid, huh?

What kind of "stupid shit" were those on the receiving end of Jared Loughner's bullets? Or Adam Lanza's bullets? Or Wade Michael Page's bullets? Jiverly Wong's? James Holmes'? John Houser's? Seung Hui-Cho's?

I think I know what Carl Robert's receiving ends were guilty of -- being Amish girls.

Want more examples? I can supply lots more. WAY too many more.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Cars are not guaranteed to you in the BOR. You do not have the right to own a car. Driving is a privilege.

Y'all just love to compare them to firearms.

As I just said --- the comparison is not so convenient when it works the other way .... is it?

It didn't work the other way.

It's a silly comparison no matter who makes it, one is a protected right the other is a privilege.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not in favor of a gun registry, national or otherwise.

It's no one's business how many or what kind of firearms I own.

It is if they're on the receiving end of a bullet... I mean it can't get much more personal than that.

Think about it.

LOL.....Pogo thinks criminals will register their guns.

Link to where I said that is ................ where?












Exactly. Learn to read.

If you end up getting shot most likely you deserved it,or it will be at the hands of a criminal who of course wont be registering his stolen firearm.

So you have no such link.

Your own words give you away....

 

[Pogo]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Cars are not guaranteed to you in the BOR. You do not have the right to own a car. Driving is a privilege.

Y'all just love to compare them to firearms.

As I just said --- the comparison is not so convenient when it works the other way .... is it?

It didn't work the other way.

It's a silly comparison no matter who makes it, one is a protected right the other is a privilege.

Recorded for future reference.

There goes that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems like to remind us that this is similar to what Hitler did when he came to power, but they also tell us not to worry about it

 

[Pogo]

It is if they're on the receiving end of a bullet... I mean it can't get much more personal than that.

Think about it.

LOL.....Pogo thinks criminals will register their guns.

Link to where I said that is ................ where?












Exactly. Learn to read.

If you end up getting shot most likely you deserved it,or it will be at the hands of a criminal who of course wont be registering his stolen firearm.

So you have no such link.

Your own words give you away....

Really. And where are these words? Oh wait, I already asked you that, and you came up empty.

I haven't even mentioned registration of firearms. I haven't touched that part of the topic at all. I'm simply following logic points, connecting the dots. You on the other hand are making up your own dots that don't even exist in the thread. QED.

If you can't handle logical points that have no physical consequences --- how do you expect to handle a firearm?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

This is the REAL ISSUE behind Obama's federal background check scheme. In order to screen out people on no-fly lists, etc. ALL gun purchasers will have to be reported to the FBI, who will have to maintain a list of such purchases.

Does anyone seriously believe that such a list could not be used for nefarious political purposes? Have you forgotten Clinton's accessing confidential FBI files of political opponents or Obama's manipulation of IRS nonprofit applications?

Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?

No, such a thing would be more Big Brother. I certainly don't trust any so-called Authority with any information about anything to do with native populations.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Yes but, the pro-Global Warming crowd hate cars and thus hate car owners. I can envisage a moment, whereby they'll attempt to make car ownership illegal....not that I think this can ever actually be enacted. Millions of people aren't going to give up their independence in this way.

 

[Pogo]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Yes but, the pro-Global Warming crowd hate cars and thus hate car owners. I can envisage a moment, whereby they'll attempt to make car ownership illegal....not that I think this can ever actually be enacted. Millions of people aren't going to give up their independence in this way.

Naaah, you're reading more into it than there is.

The gun fetishists around here normally love to make the false comparison between firearm homicides and automotive fatalities -- never mind that the latter are made up of accidents in a technology not designed for killing at all, in fact designed to avoid it --- so here I threw that false comparison back in their collective face.

It sure quieted 'em down, didn't it?

The instant point was on the premise advanced that "registration is the first step to a ban", to which I countered with the car example. That kind of shot the tires out of that argument, to mix a metaphor.

 

[dilloduck]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Yes but, the pro-Global Warming crowd hate cars and thus hate car owners. I can envisage a moment, whereby they'll attempt to make car ownership illegal....not that I think this can ever actually be enacted. Millions of people aren't going to give up their independence in this way.

Naaah, you're reading more into it than there is.

The gun fetishists around here normally love to make the false comparison between firearm homicides and automotive fatalities -- never mind that the latter are made up of accidents in a technology not designed for killing at all, in fact designed to avoid it --- so here I threw that false comparison back in their collective face.

It sure quieted 'em down, didn't it?

The instant point was on the premise advanced that "registration is the first step to a ban", to which I countered with the car example. That kind of shot the tires out of that argument, to mix a metaphor.

There are guns designed for hunting, target practice and self defense. None are designed to murder civilians

 

[Pogo]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Yes but, the pro-Global Warming crowd hate cars and thus hate car owners. I can envisage a moment, whereby they'll attempt to make car ownership illegal....not that I think this can ever actually be enacted. Millions of people aren't going to give up their independence in this way.

Naaah, you're reading more into it than there is.

The gun fetishists around here normally love to make the false comparison between firearm homicides and automotive fatalities -- never mind that the latter are made up of accidents in a technology not designed for killing at all, in fact designed to avoid it --- so here I threw that false comparison back in their collective face.

It sure quieted 'em down, didn't it?

The instant point was on the premise advanced that "registration is the first step to a ban", to which I countered with the car example. That kind of shot the tires out of that argument, to mix a metaphor.

There are guns designed for hunting, target practice and self defense. None are designed to murder civilians

None of them are designed to discriminate among targets; yet all of them are designed to penetrate, regardless what they're aimed at. In that way it's symbolically a proxy penis, but leave us remember what guns were invented for in the first place:

War and hunting.

Both of which involve killing. The target is completely up to the user.

Would that it were not so ---- but it is.

 

[dilloduck]

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Yes but, the pro-Global Warming crowd hate cars and thus hate car owners. I can envisage a moment, whereby they'll attempt to make car ownership illegal....not that I think this can ever actually be enacted. Millions of people aren't going to give up their independence in this way.

Naaah, you're reading more into it than there is.

The gun fetishists around here normally love to make the false comparison between firearm homicides and automotive fatalities -- never mind that the latter are made up of accidents in a technology not designed for killing at all, in fact designed to avoid it --- so here I threw that false comparison back in their collective face.

It sure quieted 'em down, didn't it?

The instant point was on the premise advanced that "registration is the first step to a ban", to which I countered with the car example. That kind of shot the tires out of that argument, to mix a metaphor.

There are guns designed for hunting, target practice and self defense. None are designed to murder civilians

None of them are designed to discriminate among targets; yet all of them are designed to penetrate, regardless what they're aimed at. In that way it's symbolically a proxy penis, but leave us remember what guns were invented for in the first place:

War and hunting.

Both of which involve killing. The target is completely up to the user.

Would that it were not so ---- but it is.

You conveniently forgot self defense.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Yes but, the pro-Global Warming crowd hate cars and thus hate car owners. I can envisage a moment, whereby they'll attempt to make car ownership illegal....not that I think this can ever actually be enacted. Millions of people aren't going to give up their independence in this way.

Naaah, you're reading more into it than there is.

The gun fetishists around here normally love to make the false comparison between firearm homicides and automotive fatalities -- never mind that the latter are made up of accidents in a technology not designed for killing at all, in fact designed to avoid it --- so here I threw that false comparison back in their collective face.

It sure quieted 'em down, didn't it?

The instant point was on the premise advanced that "registration is the first step to a ban", to which I countered with the car example. That kind of shot the tires out of that argument, to mix a metaphor.

I often fail to comprehend such subtle comments Perhaps it's because we don't tend to do subtle, we're more 'um direct lol.

Myself I own guns, as do all of my family.

 

[dilloduck]

How many thousands weapons has Obama approved for sale to foreign countries? Is he willing to take responsibility for what every one of them does ?

 

[Pogo]

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Yes but, the pro-Global Warming crowd hate cars and thus hate car owners. I can envisage a moment, whereby they'll attempt to make car ownership illegal....not that I think this can ever actually be enacted. Millions of people aren't going to give up their independence in this way.

Naaah, you're reading more into it than there is.

The gun fetishists around here normally love to make the false comparison between firearm homicides and automotive fatalities -- never mind that the latter are made up of accidents in a technology not designed for killing at all, in fact designed to avoid it --- so here I threw that false comparison back in their collective face.

It sure quieted 'em down, didn't it?

The instant point was on the premise advanced that "registration is the first step to a ban", to which I countered with the car example. That kind of shot the tires out of that argument, to mix a metaphor.

There are guns designed for hunting, target practice and self defense. None are designed to murder civilians

None of them are designed to discriminate among targets; yet all of them are designed to penetrate, regardless what they're aimed at. In that way it's symbolically a proxy penis, but leave us remember what guns were invented for in the first place:

War and hunting.

Both of which involve killing. The target is completely up to the user.

Would that it were not so ---- but it is.

You conveniently forgot self defense.

Not at all -- I just said, and it's still sitting above, "The target is completely up to the user" -- which includes self-defense, target shooting, or Elvis Presely blowing his TV away when he doesn't like what's on. That's user intent, which is not what I was posting about. I posted about the technology's function. As in "design".

If you want to go to intent, then we're back to shooting the tires out of the car argument.

Voilà. I run rings around you logically.