What's new

CDZ Gun law proposals, I oppose all of them, tell me how they actually would work.

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,119
Reaction score
14,593
Points
2,180
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...

 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
594
Points
190
A national quick draw competition league would be more effective and more fun.
 

hunarcy

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
6,731
Reaction score
909
Points
255
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...
None of those are "common sense" laws. They've run out of "common sense" laws and are now trying to impose their insanity on all of us.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,119
Reaction score
14,593
Points
2,180
The anti-gunners always say we don't want knew gun laws, and always fail to provide the gun laws they support. I have presented a list of new gun laws and they won't explain how they actually work, in particular, how they would have stopped the Virginia shooter.........
 

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
4,391
Reaction score
491
Points
170
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...

I have no problem with law abiding citizens of sound mind owning rifles or pistols.

I can also accept private ownership of automatic weapons.

However I would want all gun owners to be properly trained and licensed.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,119
Reaction score
14,593
Points
2,180
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...

I have no problem with law abiding citizens of sound mind owning rifles or pistols.

I can also accept private ownership of automatic weapons.

However I would want all gun owners to be properly trained and licensed.

The problem with mandatory training and licenses...if that is what you mean, is twofold....

1) They cost money....and it any tax or fee on the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional.

2) Mandatory training is one of the ways anti-gunners can keep normal people from owning and carrying guns....in Europe, the training requirements are so heavy, normal people don't have the time or money to meet them.....so the limited number of hunting shotguns they are allowed to own, they can't, because they can't meet the training requirements.

And licensing is simply unnecessary.

Licensing does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters, and is simply a way to add paperwork, and legal jeopardy to the act of owning a gun.
 

NotYourBody

VIP Member
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
1,494
Reaction score
110
Points
75
Location
On the Border
I have no problem with law abiding citizens of sound mind owning rifles or pistols.

I can also accept private ownership of automatic weapons.

However I would want all gun owners to be properly trained and licensed.
Trained, licensed and insured.

It's what we require of people who drive automobiles in this country. Common sense.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
6,000
Reaction score
762
Points
195
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...

I have no problem with law abiding citizens of sound mind owning rifles or pistols.

I can also accept private ownership of automatic weapons.

However I would want all gun owners to be properly trained and licensed.
Then we should apply that same standard to all rights.

No training or license for your first, third, forth fifth amendment etc rights? Then you're shit out of luck, son.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
6,000
Reaction score
762
Points
195
I have no problem with law abiding citizens of sound mind owning rifles or pistols.

I can also accept private ownership of automatic weapons.

However I would want all gun owners to be properly trained and licensed.
Trained, licensed and insured.

It's what we require of people who drive automobiles in this country. Common sense.
Driving on public roads is not a right it is a privilege granted by the states and can be revoked at any time for any reason
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
119,260
Reaction score
9,907
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Driving on public roads is not a right it is a privilege granted by the states and can be revoked at any time for any reason
Gun ownership isn't a right and the government should be able to revoke it as well.

Even you gun advocates don't think that criminals and crazy people should have a 'right' to a gun. so let's cut the nonsense here.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
36,136
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,240
Location
Florida
There should be absolutely no gun laws due to the fact that the Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Every friggin gun law is an infringement and is unlawful because it is against the Constitution.

There should be laws against using guns for illegal purpose but never for keeping them and bearing them.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
74,825
Reaction score
9,559
Points
2,070
I have no problem with law abiding citizens of sound mind owning rifles or pistols.

I can also accept private ownership of automatic weapons.

However I would want all gun owners to be properly trained and licensed.
Trained, licensed and insured.

It's what we require of people who drive automobiles in this country. Common sense.
Common bullshit. Driving is not a right.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,119
Reaction score
14,593
Points
2,180
I have no problem with law abiding citizens of sound mind owning rifles or pistols.

I can also accept private ownership of automatic weapons.

However I would want all gun owners to be properly trained and licensed.
Trained, licensed and insured.

It's what we require of people who drive automobiles in this country. Common sense.

Nope......the democrats used Literacy tests, and Poll Taxes to keep Blacks and poor whites from voting......any fee or test to exercise a Right is unConstitutional....it has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
74,825
Reaction score
9,559
Points
2,070
Notice that none of the liberal filth has answered the question posed in the op and they never will.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,119
Reaction score
14,593
Points
2,180
Notice that none of the liberal filth has answered the question posed in the op and they never will.

Because we know their real answer....they want to ban all guns....anything else is a baby step for them in that direction......
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
6,000
Reaction score
762
Points
195
Driving on public roads is not a right it is a privilege granted by the states and can be revoked at any time for any reason
Gun ownership isn't a right and the government should be able to revoke it as well.

Even you gun advocates don't think that criminals and crazy people should have a 'right' to a gun. so let's cut the nonsense here.
Those rights are taken away via DUE PROCESS, Moron.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
58,853
Reaction score
6,634
Points
1,830
Society has a right to protect itself. Hence gun laws make perfect sense.

Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws where what is legal in one state is not legal in another; what is illegal in a municipality is perfectly legal outside of it.

Its like fireworks on the fourth of July. We had laws against them in the city limits yet, every Independence Day, you heard nothing but fireworks going off as soon as the sun went down. People would just drive out to the unincorporated areas and buy them and bring them back.

The rest of the world has proven gun laws work when it is done in the macro. Its time we do the same thing here. Meanwhile…if you’re in need of a means of aggressive defense—firearms—you should be able to purchase them. Do you need a gun on Wacker St. in Chicago? No. Do you need one in rural Nebraska? Yep. It would be, in my view, irresponsible not to have one. The nearest LEO may be 30 miles away.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
6,000
Reaction score
762
Points
195
Society has a right to protect itself. Hence gun laws make perfect sense.

Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws where what is legal in one state is not legal in another; what is illegal in a municipality is perfectly legal outside of it.

Its like fireworks on the fourth of July. We had laws against them in the city limits yet, every Independence Day, you heard nothing but fireworks going off as soon as the sun went down. People would just drive out to the unincorporated areas and buy them and bring them back.

The rest of the world has proven gun laws work when it is done in the macro. Its time we do the same thing here. Meanwhile…if you’re in need of a means of aggressive defense—firearms—you should be able to purchase them. Do you need a gun on Wacker St. in Chicago? No. Do you need one in rural Nebraska? Yep. It would be, in my view, irresponsible not to have one. The nearest LEO may be 30 miles away.
Society cannot protect itself as a society is nothing but a collection of individuals

The people who make up a society need to be able to protect themselves from other people in that society that would do them harm
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,119
Reaction score
14,593
Points
2,180
Society has a right to protect itself. Hence gun laws make perfect sense.

Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws where what is legal in one state is not legal in another; what is illegal in a municipality is perfectly legal outside of it.

Its like fireworks on the fourth of July. We had laws against them in the city limits yet, every Independence Day, you heard nothing but fireworks going off as soon as the sun went down. People would just drive out to the unincorporated areas and buy them and bring them back.


The rest of the world has proven gun laws work when it is done in the macro. Its time we do the same thing here. Meanwhile…if you’re in need of a means of aggressive defense—firearms—you should be able to purchase them. Do you need a gun on Wacker St. in Chicago? No. Do you need one in rural Nebraska? Yep. It would be, in my view, irresponsible not to have one. The nearest LEO may be 30 miles away.
The rest of the world has proven gun laws work when it is done in the macro.

The rest of the world hasn't proven anything like that. In fact, they haven't actually started the experiment.

Now, however, as their families have been destroyed by the welfare state, and they have imported 3rd world immigrants with values hostile to western values and the culture clash is beginning, now we will see how they do with gun violence.

They now have generations of young males, raised by single teenage girls without fathers.....and massive numbers of 3rd world males who hate these European countries, taking over large areas of these countries........and the violence levels in these countries are rising.....

Again, Britain had a low gun murder rate before they banned guns....they banned guns and the gun murder rate first spiked, then returned to the same level. And as the British police have stated just recently, they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into the country. In real science, that would show that the gun control laws had no effect on gun crime.

As more Americans have owned and actually carried gun for self defense, our gun murder rate went down, 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....in real science, that would, at the least, show that gun ownership by law abiding people does not increase gun crime. And that is over 26 years...a nice long time period to see the effects of law abiding gun ownership....

So actual facts, and real world experience show that you are wrong in your theory......
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,119
Reaction score
14,593
Points
2,180
Society has a right to protect itself. Hence gun laws make perfect sense.

Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws where what is legal in one state is not legal in another; what is illegal in a municipality is perfectly legal outside of it.

Its like fireworks on the fourth of July. We had laws against them in the city limits yet, every Independence Day, you heard nothing but fireworks going off as soon as the sun went down. People would just drive out to the unincorporated areas and buy them and bring them back.

The rest of the world has proven gun laws work when it is done in the macro. Its time we do the same thing here. Meanwhile…if you’re in need of a means of aggressive defense—firearms—you should be able to purchase them. Do you need a gun on Wacker St. in Chicago? No. Do you need one in rural Nebraska? Yep. It would be, in my view, irresponsible not to have one. The nearest LEO may be 30 miles away.



With crime on the rise in Chicago...why wouldn't you need a gun on Wacker street, or anywhere else in Chicago? The Chicago police can't be on scene when you are ambushed at the bus stop, dragged into an ally and raped.....they can fill out your police report and take the rape kit from the hospital staff.......but why would you think it was a good idea to force a woman to be raped, than to allow her the choice to stop the rape with a gun? That makes no sense at all......
 
Top