Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone

[daveman]

Once again a Damn lie by ^^^ an obsessed and callous fool.

I've posted common sense arguments on sound, sensible gun control ad nausea, and the single rebuttal by you and others like you - obsessed with guns - is the single phrase, "shall not be infringed".

In short, licensing, registration, safe storage, insurance on each gun, fully vetting on all sales, donations, thefts, and on loans, loses and destruction of.

I guarantee you would not accept the same restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Well, you would -- for conservatives, of course.

The goofball is talking about wanting sound, sensible gun regulations, carries on about logic, common sense and critical thinking, but fails to understand something as simple as the fact that because he wants something doesn't actually require anyone to provide him with it no matter how sensible he may think it is.

Wonder if he understand, "go pound sand"?

Each time a shooting of school children happens, you terrorists (yes, you have made that grade) lose more gtround. Once again, the laws in Colorado didn't stop the most recent school shooting but it did keep the body count way down. Plus, people are pissed off and aren't relying on your stupid "More Guns" terrorist nonsense.

How did the laws of Colorado "keep the body count way down"?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Yeah. The confiscators' blood. lol. Gun owners outnumber the government's confiscators 10,000 to 1.

Pack a lunch, boys.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Something tells me the confiscators haven't thought things through all the way. Heh heh.

 

[elongobardi]

Libtards don’t have common sense. Listen too your what is it now22 candidates 3/4 of them want to take guns away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[daveman]

Once again a Damn lie by ^^^ an obsessed and callous fool.

I've posted common sense arguments on sound, sensible gun control ad nausea, and the single rebuttal by you and others like you - obsessed with guns - is the single phrase, "shall not be infringed".

In short, licensing, registration, safe storage, insurance on each gun, fully vetting on all sales, donations, thefts, and on loans, loses and destruction of.

I guarantee you would not accept the same restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Well, you would -- for conservatives, of course.

The goofball is talking about wanting sound, sensible gun regulations, carries on about logic, common sense and critical thinking, but fails to understand something as simple as the fact that because he wants something doesn't actually require anyone to provide him with it no matter how sensible he may think it is.

Wonder if he understand, "go pound sand"?

Each time a shooting of school children happens, you terrorists (yes, you have made that grade) lose more gtround. Once again, the laws in Colorado didn't stop the most recent school shooting but it did keep the body count way down. Plus, people are pissed off and aren't relying on your stupid "More Guns" terrorist nonsense.

How did the laws of Colorado "keep the body count way down"?

There is a question on the table.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Once again a Damn lie by ^^^ an obsessed and callous fool.

I've posted common sense arguments on sound, sensible gun control ad nausea, and the single rebuttal by you and others like you - obsessed with guns - is the single phrase, "shall not be infringed".

In short, licensing, registration, safe storage, insurance on each gun, fully vetting on all sales, donations, thefts, and on loans, loses and destruction of.

I guarantee you would not accept the same restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Well, you would -- for conservatives, of course.

The goofball is talking about wanting sound, sensible gun regulations, carries on about logic, common sense and critical thinking, but fails to understand something as simple as the fact that because he wants something doesn't actually require anyone to provide him with it no matter how sensible he may think it is.

Wonder if he understand, "go pound sand"?

If I think something ought to exist, and some clown tells me to "pound sand" does not mean I will acquiesce. I will continue to post an argue my common sense opinions. Unlike the current iteraton of conservatives, who lack the ability to do so, and push the funny button (equivalent to a slow second grader's rebuttal)

I suspect that the more irrational mass murders occur, the more people will see the light. As for pounding sand, that is nothing more than a metaphor for some goofballs who have no argument and can't deny that change, since Parkland, has eroded the laissez faire attitude of more and more citizens, including gun owners.

The ascendancy of Conservatism has past, and the new voting demographic is more diverse, more motivated and more progressive than than those spoiled by the late Baby Boomers. IMO Trump's form of leadership is heading the 21st Century Republicans onto the rocks, and it won't surprise me if the nadir for their party is in their future..

 

[M14 Shooter]

If I think something ought to exist, and some clown tells me to "pound sand" does not mean I will acquiesce. I will continue to post an argue my common sense opinions.

You can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, there is no sense in them whatsoever.

 

[Blues Man]

Once again a Damn lie by ^^^ an obsessed and callous fool.

I've posted common sense arguments on sound, sensible gun control ad nausea, and the single rebuttal by you and others like you - obsessed with guns - is the single phrase, "shall not be infringed".

In short, licensing, registration, safe storage, insurance on each gun, fully vetting on all sales, donations, thefts, and on loans, loses and destruction of.

I guarantee you would not accept the same restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Well, you would -- for conservatives, of course.

The goofball is talking about wanting sound, sensible gun regulations, carries on about logic, common sense and critical thinking, but fails to understand something as simple as the fact that because he wants something doesn't actually require anyone to provide him with it no matter how sensible he may think it is.

Wonder if he understand, "go pound sand"?

If I think something ought to exist, and some clown tells me to "pound sand" does not mean I will acquiesce. I will continue to post an argue my common sense opinions. Unlike the current iteraton of conservatives, who lack the ability to do so, and push the funny button (equivalent to a slow second grader's rebuttal)

I suspect that the more irrational mass murders occur, the more people will see the light. As for pounding sand, that is nothing more than a metaphor for some goofballs who have no argument and can't deny that change, since Parkland, has eroded the laissez faire attitude of more and more citizens, including gun owners.

The ascendancy of Conservatism has past, and the new voting demographic is more diverse, more motivated and more progressive than than those spoiled by the late Baby Boomers. IMO Trump's form of leadership is heading the 21st Century Republicans onto the rocks, and it won't surprise me if the nadir for their party is in their future..

And again I ask you where do our federal gun laws fail the common sense test?

Our gun laws are ineffective because they are not enforced but the laws themselves are quite good.

What current laws would you get rid of because they lack "common sense"?

And how would any new laws be any more effective if like our current laws they are not enforced?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And how would any new laws be any more effective if like our current laws they are not enforced?

He doesn't care - he wants to restrict the law abiding as much as be possibly can.
Are the laws necessary? Who cares?
Are they effectual? Doesn't matter.
Do they restrict the law abiding? Mission accomplished!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Something tells me the confiscators haven't thought things through all the way. Heh heh.

lol

Something needs to tell you that your posts are nonsense. No one advocates for confiscation, there will be no government confiscation. The notion is a lie and ridiculous right-wing demagoguery.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Something tells me the confiscators haven't thought things through all the way. Heh heh.

Something needs to tell you that your posts are nonsense. No one advocates for confiscation

This is a lie.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If I think something ought to exist, and some clown tells me to "pound sand" does not mean I will acquiesce. I will continue to post an argue my common sense opinions.

You can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, there is no sense in them whatsoever.

Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.

Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.

Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.

Noting here changes - and, indeed, only serves to prove - the fact you can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, you further illustrate there is no sense in them whatsoever.
Keep up the good work.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.

Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.

Noting here changes - and, indeed, only serves to prove - the fact you can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, you further illustrate there is no sense in them whatsoever.
Keep up the good work.

For the record, you can read words, it seems you can't comprehend what they mean when put together in a paragraph, when in an expository argument.

For the record (which seems too abstract for you to understand) the law CANNOT prevent law breaking, it can punish the law breaker by restricting their liberty and/or assessing a fine.

If your State required a license to own, possess or have in your custody and control a gun, and you had said license, you right to own your gun(s) is not infringed; no more so than a surgeon must be licensed or a driver to drive a car.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.

Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.

Noting here changes - and, indeed, only serves to prove - the fact you can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, you further illustrate there is no sense in them whatsoever.
Keep up the good work.

For the record, you can read words, it seems you can't comprehend what they mean when put together in a paragraph, when in an expository argument.

On the contrary -- I comprehend your words completely, fully and to an immeasurable depth.
Nowhere in your post was there a sound demonstration of the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek
Why?
Because you have none.

If your State required a license to own, possess or have in your custody and control a gun...

A requirement to obtain a license form the state prior to exercise the right to keep and bear arms violates the constitution in exactly the same manner as the requirement to obtain a license from the state prior to exercise the right to an abortion.

Never mind the fact you can demonstrate neither the necessity or the efficacy of a requirement to obtain a license from the state prior to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[daveman]

If I think something ought to exist, and some clown tells me to "pound sand" does not mean I will acquiesce. I will continue to post an argue my common sense opinions.

You can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, there is no sense in them whatsoever.

Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.

Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.

Uh huh. Meanwhile, in reality, criminals don't obey the law. Not even your "common sense" laws.

All your laws will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and their families.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If I think something ought to exist, and some clown tells me to "pound sand" does not mean I will acquiesce. I will continue to post an argue my common sense opinions.

You can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, there is no sense in them whatsoever.

Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.

Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.

Uh huh. Meanwhile, in reality, criminals don't obey the law. Not even your "common sense" laws.

All your laws will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and their families.

You are a DAMN LIAR

Tell me and the readers what part of my common sense suggestions will deprive a sober, sane, law abiding citizen the ability to defend him/herself and their family or property?

 

[Blues Man]

Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.

Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.

Noting here changes - and, indeed, only serves to prove - the fact you can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, you further illustrate there is no sense in them whatsoever.
Keep up the good work.

For the record, you can read words, it seems you can't comprehend what they mean when put together in a paragraph, when in an expository argument.

For the record (which seems too abstract for you to understand) the law CANNOT prevent law breaking, it can punish the law breaker by restricting their liberty and/or assessing a fine.

If your State required a license to own, possess or have in your custody and control a gun, and you had said license, you right to own your gun(s) is not infringed; no more so than a surgeon must be licensed or a driver to drive a car.

And if those laws are not enforced how effective are they?

Your own argument is that our federal gun laws are ineffoective because they are not enforced so how would any new laws be more effective if they are not enforced?

Don't you think we should vigorously enforce the gun laws we do have before we pass more laws?

 

[daveman]

If I think something ought to exist, and some clown tells me to "pound sand" does not mean I will acquiesce. I will continue to post an argue my common sense opinions.

You can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, there is no sense in them whatsoever.

Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.

Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.

Uh huh. Meanwhile, in reality, criminals don't obey the law. Not even your "common sense" laws.

All your laws will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and their families.

You are a DAMN LIAR

Tell me and the readers what part of my common sense suggestions will deprive a sober, sane, law abiding citizen the ability to defend him/herself and their family or property?

LOL! No, Fly Catcher, I will NOT kiss your ass, no matter how much you think you're entitled to it.

Your laws might not deprive normal people from defending themselves.

But the left -- the left is never satisfied with "just a few more laws".

The left's goal is confiscation, and always has been.

The additional laws you want will prove useless against criminals (because, as has repeatedly pointed out, criminals don't obey the law).

Once your laws are shown to have no effect, you will stamp your feet and emotionally insist on more laws. You'll call them "common sense", too.

That's the way every gun law has been passed. That's the way Americans' Second Amendment rights have eroded over the years -- because we need "just a few more laws" to make us safe.

Thing is -- the left doesn't want us safe.

You want us disarmed.

That is undeniable history.

Now throw another little ***** fit. It changes nothing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.

Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.

Noting here changes - and, indeed, only serves to prove - the fact you can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, you further illustrate there is no sense in them whatsoever.
Keep up the good work.

For the record, you can read words, it seems you can't comprehend what they mean when put together in a paragraph, when in an expository argument.

For the record (which seems too abstract for you to understand) the law CANNOT prevent law breaking, it can punish the law breaker by restricting their liberty and/or assessing a fine.

If your State required a license to own, possess or have in your custody and control a gun, and you had said license, you right to own your gun(s) is not infringed; no more so than a surgeon must be licensed or a driver to drive a car.

And if those laws are not enforced how effective are they?

Your own argument is that our federal gun laws are ineffoective because they are not enforced so how would any new laws be more effective if they are not enforced?

Don't you think we should vigorously enforce the gun laws we do have before we pass more laws?

What evidence do you have that laws yet to be passed will not be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of those most of us know should not own, possess or ever have in their custody and control a firearm?

[BTW you first paragraph states my argument is that our Federal Government's laws are ineffective because they are not enforced: A Straw Man which won't burn since I never stated that nor believe it]

How would you enforce the gun laws "vigourously"?