Why there can be no compromise with the anti-gun side of the debate....

[ding]

Talking to tRumplings is like talking to a dog. They look like they are listening but it just goes in one ear and out the other and they go back to licking their own butts as soon as you finish talking.

You literally just described yourself. I've tied you into a pretzel.

 

[Crepitus]

You literally just described yourself. I've tied you into a pretzel.

YOu've done nothing but spew nonsense, boy.

 

[ding]

See my post above.

Which one? The one where you said you were pro-gun control?

 

[ding]

YOu've done nothing but spew nonsense, boy.

I'm happy with this record. You are pro gun control because you get emotional over one off events by a tiny minority and think every single law abiding citizen should have his rights infringed upon because of it.

 

[80zephyr]

Lol, I would require training, licensing, and insurance for carry.

YOu can own any damn thing you want, just don't take it to the public park without proper licensing that certifies you know how to use and care for it properly as well as a liability policy to cover the inevitable accidents.

Maybe you have the statistics of how many illegal guns were used in these killings? From what I have read, I have never seen it. So why would training, licensing, and insurance work to protect us?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Oooh, I see!

You're rationalizing!

Or at least trying.

News for ya kiddo, I'm not anti-gun, I have more than a few, a CC license I rarely use, and until recently held FFL 11 because of my business.

I'm pro gun control because we do not need whack-jobs carrying rifles into convenience stores.

You're lying, or a Fudd. (Or both.)

Lol, I would require training, licensing, and insurance for carry.

YOu can own any damn thing you want, just don't take it to the public park without proper licensing that certifies you know how to use and care for it properly as well as a liability policy to cover the inevitable accidents.

Translation: like Dianne Feinstein, YOU want to be able to own a gun but want to make it impossible for ANYONE ELSE to do so.

 

[Crepitus]

YOU want to be able to own a gun but want to make it impossible for ANYONE ELSE to do so.

Nope. I would follow the same rules as anyone else.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Nope. I would follow the same rules as anyone else.

Which, of course, you want carefully tailored to be minimal inconvenience to YOU.

 

[Crepitus]

Which, of course, you want carefully tailored to be minimal inconvenience to YOU.

Nope. Training, licensing, and insurance should be equally easy for everyone.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Nope. Training, licensing, and insurance should be equally easy for everyone.

So, you want it provided free of charge and taught in all schools?

 

[Crepitus]

So, you want it provided free of charge and taught in all schools?

YOu thought I wanted you kids to bootstrap it? I'm fine with legitimate firearms training in school.

 

[Jarlaxle]

YOu thought I wanted you kids to bootstrap it? I'm fine with legitimate firearms training in school.

That's gibberish, try again.

 

[Crepitus]

That's gibberish, try again.

Talk to your ESL instructor.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Talk to your ESL instructor.

More nonsense. I have no idea what, if anything, you are attempting to communicate. Do you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Simple, really:
They have nothing to offer us -- we have everything and they want to take it from us.
They have no interest in compromise; they demand acquiescence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lol, I would require training, licensing, and insurance for carry.
YOu can own any damn thing you want, just don't take it to the public park without proper licensing that certifies you know how to use and care for it properly as well as a liability policy to cover the inevitable accidents.

"No."
- US Constitution

 

[Crepitus]

"No."
- US Constitution

The constitution doesn't say no licensing or insurance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution doesn't say no licensing or insurance.

"Shall not be infringed".

If you cannot demonstrate the requirements for a license and insurance to carry a run are "consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" - that is, commonplace during the time the 2nd was ratified - then they are infringements and violate the constitution.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN

www.law.cornell.edu

You, of course, are fully aware of the fact you cannot demonstrate any such thing.

Thus:
"No."
- US Constitution

 

[ding]

Nope. Training, licensing, and insurance should be equally easy for everyone.

In post #31 you said you were pro gun control because we do not need whack-jobs carrying rifles into convenience stores.

How would training, licensing and insurance prevent that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In post #31 you said you were pro gun control because we do not need whack-jobs carrying rifles into convenience stores.
How would training, licensing and insurance prevent that?

It won't.
He just wants to restrict the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding as much as possible.