Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses

[RKMBrown]

Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

it can't be a fact when you are merely incompetent.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

This danielpalos is just a POS Troll.

 

[2aguy]

You need to read the law. When you do, you will see that what I said is correct.
18 U.S. Code 922 - Unlawful acts US Law LII Legal Information Institute
(See section (d))
As such, your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" is proven false.

Those only apply if the seller actually knows if any of those things apply to the buyer. There is no obligation or legal reason for the seller to find out, and you probably can't count on the buyer telling you if he is a felon.

Your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" has been proven false.

No it hasn't.

It has.
If you know the person you;re selling to cannot legally own a gun, then selling him a gun is illegal.
Therefore, it is NOT "perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed", as people who know the buyer cannot own a gun cannot legally sell him a gun.

You're dodging. Only if you personally know they can't have it. Otherwise, sell away. You don't have to find out.

And that is fine.......if you happen to know, and you know that is illegal, don't sell....if not....we will catch them when they use the gun to commit a crime or when we catch them with the gun in the first place...since according to this scenario, they can't legally posses the gun in the first place....right?

 

[BULLDOG]

Look it up yourself.

In other words, you know you're just making things up.

Surely you are smart enough to know that fully automatic rifles are just as illegal as RPG's

Wait.... you think machineguns are illegal?
Bwwwahahahhhahah!
Way to prove to the world that you have no idea what you;re talking about.

I don't think. I know that unregulated ownership or use of a machine gun is illegal.

Surely you know that your original statement here was that "fully automatic rifles are just as illegal as RPG's"
Surely you know that your statement, above, is you moving the goalposts.
Surely you know that no one here is surprised by this.
Now, cite for us again those restrictions on firearms that are constitutional and the SCotUS decisions that held them to be.

No, that wasn't my original statement, but obviously it was a mistake to make a blanket remark that automatic rifles are illegal. I admit that

Good boy.
Now, cite for us again those restrictions on firearms that are constitutional and the SCotUS decisions that held them to be.

Dumb assed question, and I'm not playing that game. Lots of requirements for owning fully automatic, or extreme weapons. Each of those requirements is a restriction.

 

[2aguy]

In other words, you know you're just making things up.
Wait.... you think machineguns are illegal?
Bwwwahahahhhahah!
Way to prove to the world that you have no idea what you;re talking about.

I don't think. I know that unregulated ownership or use of a machine gun is illegal.

Surely you know that your original statement here was that "fully automatic rifles are just as illegal as RPG's"
Surely you know that your statement, above, is you moving the goalposts.
Surely you know that no one here is surprised by this.
Now, cite for us again those restrictions on firearms that are constitutional and the SCotUS decisions that held them to be.

No, that wasn't my original statement, but obviously it was a mistake to make a blanket remark that automatic rifles are illegal. I admit that

Good boy.
Now, cite for us again those restrictions on firearms that are constitutional and the SCotUS decisions that held them to be.

Dumb assed question, and I'm not playing that game. Lots of requirements for owning fully automatic, or extreme weapons. Each of those requirements is a restriction.

And they are wrong.....they are infringements on law abiding citizens.....

 

[danielpalos]

it can't be a fact when you are merely incompetent.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

This danielpalos is just a POS Troll.

losers who have nothing but fallacy, always say that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You need to read the law. When you do, you will see that what I said is correct.
18 U.S. Code 922 - Unlawful acts US Law LII Legal Information Institute
(See section (d))
As such, your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" is proven false.

Those only apply if the seller actually knows if any of those things apply to the buyer. There is no obligation or legal reason for the seller to find out, and you probably can't count on the buyer telling you if he is a felon.

Your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" has been proven false.

No it hasn't.

It has.
If you know the person you;re selling to cannot legally own a gun, then selling him a gun is illegal.
Therefore, it is NOT "perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed", as people who know the buyer cannot own a gun cannot legally sell him a gun.

You're dodging. Only if you personally know they can't have it

And thus, you admit I am correct in that your statement is false.
Thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

it can't be a fact when you are merely incompetent.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

 

[BULLDOG]

Those only apply if the seller actually knows if any of those things apply to the buyer. There is no obligation or legal reason for the seller to find out, and you probably can't count on the buyer telling you if he is a felon.

Your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" has been proven false.

No it hasn't.

It has.
If you know the person you;re selling to cannot legally own a gun, then selling him a gun is illegal.
Therefore, it is NOT "perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed", as people who know the buyer cannot own a gun cannot legally sell him a gun.

You're dodging. Only if you personally know they can't have it

And thus, you admit I am correct in that your statement is false.
Thank you.

You are too dumb to talk to.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now, cite for us again those restrictions on firearms that are constitutional and the SCotUS decisions that held them to be.

Dumb assed question, and I'm not playing that game.

That's because you know you cannot support your assertion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" has been proven false.

No it hasn't.

It has.
If you know the person you;re selling to cannot legally own a gun, then selling him a gun is illegal.
Therefore, it is NOT "perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed", as people who know the buyer cannot own a gun cannot legally sell him a gun.

You're dodging. Only if you personally know they can't have it

And thus, you admit I am correct in that your statement is false.
Thank you.

You are too dumb to talk to.

And yet, I proved your statement to be false.
Doesn't speak well for you.

 

[danielpalos]

it can't be a fact when you are merely incompetent.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

which willful ignorance is that? you are the one who has nothing but fallacy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

This danielpalos is just a POS Troll.

losers who have nothing but fallacy, always say that.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

which willful ignorance is that? you are the one who has nothing but fallacy.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

 

[danielpalos]

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

This danielpalos is just a POS Troll.

losers who have nothing but fallacy, always say that.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

which lie is that; person who merely claims morals with only affirmative action.

 

[danielpalos]

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

which willful ignorance is that? you are the one who has nothing but fallacy.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i don't need to lie simply Because i have a clue and a Cause.; unlike the Right and yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

which willful ignorance is that? you are the one who has nothing but fallacy.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i don't need to lie simply Because i have a clue and a Cause.; unlike the Right and yourself.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

 

[kaz]

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Begging the question. What about answering it? It goes directly to the ridiculousness of what you just said.

How does restricting the rights of people who aren't criminals make you feel safer? Criminals don't follow the laws. Hint, they are criminals...

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

I have no problem with universal background checks. So that's all you want? Other than that we can eliminate our ridiculous gun laws?

 

[kaz]

Back to the all or nothing again. This all started with the premise that gun rights can not be infringed in any way. Obviously, they can be in reasonable ways. The only question now is "what is reasonable". I think it is reasonable for an individual who is selling a gun to find out if the buyer is allowed by law to have it. A few bucks for a background check that the buyer would probably pay for is the best way to make sure that happens. Don't you want to make it harder for crooks to get guns?

No, the right to own a gun cannot be infringed. It's your all or nothing mind that's warping that. Universal background checks do not infringe on your right to have a gun. They enforce that convicted criminals criminals and children who don't have the right to buy a gun cannot buy them from legal dealers. You don't have the right to aim guns at other people or threaten them. None of those laws are infringing on your right to have a gun.

Getting government approval, registering them, dictating what you can and cannot buy. Those are infringement on gun ownership rights. The obvious is so out of the grasp of leftists, it's incredible.

 

[kaz]

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

which willful ignorance is that? you are the one who has nothing but fallacy.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i don't need to lie simply Because i have a clue and a Cause.; unlike the Right and yourself.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

Don't be too hard on him, he's Canadian

 

[kaz]

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

Right. Voluntary checks. Lots of people willing to sell guns to anybody as long as they can say they didn't know the buyer was a crook. How you gonna prove they were lying? With universal checks, we get rid of that loophole.

It's the stupidity of your system. Guns are owned by the police, criminals and honest citizens. You're targeting honest citizens and expecting that to make you safe. It's a simplistic solution by a mental child