And now we have Tuesday’s mass shooting,

[Into the Night]

You have a right to own property not a car. It's just accurate.

A car is property. You have the right to own a car.

And just because you can own a car doesn't mean you have a right to drive it wherever you please.

You do have the right to drive on public roadways wherever you please, so long as the rules of the road are followed.
The State MUST issue a drivers license to anyone that demonstrates they can follow the rules of the road.

Guns do not require any 'rules of the road'. You just point and shoot. The usual assault and murder laws apply of course.

 

[Into the Night]

So you can't drive your care wherever you please. Rights have restrictions whether we like it or not.

I assume you mean 'car'.

The government cannot restrict it.

 

[Into the Night]

Thats a restriction of your right.

No, it isn't. The government can't tell that owner whether he can give his permission or not concerning your car or your gun.

Look let's be sensible there are inherent restrictions on rights.

No. Government cannot stop you from carrying a weapon. Even prisoners carry weapons.

Govt restrictions are a different matter.

Doesn't work.

The right to self defense is inherent.

 

[Into the Night]

Easily done if you have an IQ over your shoe size. Name a time in American history when guns were confiscated.

Next part of your comment makes no sense.

The revolutionary war. The 'civil war'. WW2. Today.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

People are.

Where?

Do you advocate that fully automatic weapons should be as available and affordable and concealed carry-able as any other gun?

 

[Yakuda]

No, it isn't. The government can't tell that owner whether he can give his permission or not concerning your car or your gun.

No. Government cannot stop you from carrying a weapon. Even prisoners carry weapons.

Doesn't work.

The right to self defense is inherent.

If I can't drive my car on someone else's property without their permission that's a restriction on my right. It's not absolute. This a simple concept. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. Simple concept.

 

[Yakuda]

I assume you mean 'car'.

The government cannot restrict it.

Yes car. the govt can as you do not own the roads. You pay to maintain them but they are not yours.

 

[Old Trapper]

stop making this wrongheaded argument..........it only proves their argument that all rights can be regulated. would the founders have required a license to drive a horse drawn wagon?

Funny you should mention that:

https://books.google.com/books?id=5...license required to operate a vehicle&f=false

 

[Matt Dillon]

Two things, first, every mass shooting has three common variables; the shooter, the place, and the gun. We can never know who the next shooter will be. We can do out best to defend the most vulnerable locations, but can’t cover them all. However the one variable we can control is that which makes it all possible, the weapon. If one is serious on addressing mass shootings access to the gun is where they start

Secondly, confiscation of guns has never been an actual policy on regulation, no one is coming to grab your whatever, and your vehicle is also registered, but you don’t just register it once, and just registering a vehicle isn’t all one does to keep and operate a vehicle

That makes gun ownership a privilege instead of a right. FAIL!

Besides; Historically, registration is always followed by confiscation.

Learn from history, numbnuts.

Gun grabbers will say or do anything to disarm Americans. Lie, cheat, steal, kill. They don't care.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

That makes gun ownership a privilege instead of a right. FAIL!

Besides; Historically registration is always followed by confiscation.

Learn from history, numbnuts.

Gonna do Into the Nights job for them. Slippery Slope fallacy.

 

[Grumpy]

.
No big deal here ... just another obastard 'workplace violence'

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Again what's a little more infringement to you if you're already tolerating the infringement that exists now? If regulating guns means your rights are being infringed why aren't you fighting back already?

do you think you're being smart and cutesy by calling out some challenge for a lone individual to try to take on the federal government? does that make you feel superior somehow? because it makes you look like a self righteous asshole

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Can you drive your car on someone else's property?

with their permission, yes.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And the part of the 2A that says "well regulated" means...?

properly armed and functioning

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You have a right to own property not a car. It's just accurate. And just because you can own a car doesn't mean you have a right to drive it wherever you please.

where does any state constitution make that distinction?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you can't drive your care wherever you please. Rights have restrictions whether we like it or not.

again, you appear to not understand the actual concept of freedom

 

[Yakuda]

with their permission, yes.

Lmfao. So the restriction on your right to drive on someone property is their permission. Your right is not absolute. This is very very simple.

 

[Yakuda]

again, you appear to not understand the actual concept of freedom

It's you that's struggling. No right is inherently absolute when it infringes on someone else's. Again a very very simple concept.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes car. the govt can as you do not own the roads. You pay to maintain them but they are not yours.

are roadways property that belongs to we the people?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Lmfao. So the restriction on your right to drive on someone property is their permission. Your right is not absolute. This is very very simple.

absurdity. you sound like jarod with that argument. are you a liberal?