Finally, intelligent gun regulations

archives said:
Nah, ain’t interested in the deflection, the sensible gun regulation of the thread has zero to do with Biden nor supermarkets
Click to expand...

It's mockery, dude. Mockery of you and of Democrats.

The right to self defense is inherent. The 2nd amendment is clear and plain. So are similar passages in State constitutions. Banning or limiting guns in any way is unconstitutional. No government has the authority to ban or limit any weapon.
 
Phantasmal said:
You only have rights if you have a government willing to uphold them.
Click to expand...

and you are advocating that it does not.

Anyone who advocates banning or restricting things is anti-rights.

You are no different than those who banned alcohol and drugs to protect people from themselves.

I'm not talking about banning DUI which endangers others or shooting into the air near people. Those protect people from immediate danger and do not restrict a person's right to driving or self-defense as fees and insurance do.
 
Last edited:
archives said:
”San Jose could set a precedent by requiring gun insurance”

“San Jose may become the first city in the nation to mandate an annual gun owner fee and liability insurance in an effort to curb gun violence.”

“The City Council will take a vote on Tuesday and if passed, San Jose residents who own guns will have to pay a $25 fee per household and purchase gun insurance that specifically covers losses or damages resulting from “any negligent or accidental use of the firearm” in six months, according to the ordinance.”

https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-could-set-a-precedent-by-requiring-gun-insurance/

Amazing it has taken this long, treating guns just as we do vehicles, especially liability requirements, and before the gun nuts begin, every Constitutional right can and is regulated, Second Amendment isn’t any different
Click to expand...

Excellent. I've been advocating for this for years. We do it with cars and other dangerous things (like swimming pools, for one).
 
Dutch Uncle said:
and you are advocating that it does not.

Anyone who advocates banning or restricting things is anti-rights.

You are no different than those who banned alcohol and drugs to protect people from themselves.
Click to expand...
The only problem with your reasoning is that I don’t advocate for banning guns. I do think in a civil society restrictions/laws are necessary.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Excellent. I've been advocating for this for years. We do it with cars and other dangerous things (like swimming pools, for one).
Click to expand...

How about something dangerous like you voting for that idiot you morons elected last November?

BTW cars and pools aren't rights.
 
Last edited:
archives said:
Tomorrow, probably won’t, but down the road, the more one can lessen accessibility to guns today effects the greater number of guns in circulation later. And it isn’t the gangbanger doing the mass shootings in schools, malls, churches, theaters, retirement homes, places of employment, salons, outdoor concerts, etc.
Click to expand...

Are those shootings "negligent or accidental." They seem intentional.
 
archives said:
”San Jose could set a precedent by requiring gun insurance”

“San Jose may become the first city in the nation to mandate an annual gun owner fee and liability insurance in an effort to curb gun violence.”

“The City Council will take a vote on Tuesday and if passed, San Jose residents who own guns will have to pay a $25 fee per household and purchase gun insurance that specifically covers losses or damages resulting from “any negligent or accidental use of the firearm” in six months, according to the ordinance.”

https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-could-set-a-precedent-by-requiring-gun-insurance/

Amazing it has taken this long, treating guns just as we do vehicles, especially liability requirements, and before the gun nuts begin, every Constitutional right can and is regulated, Second Amendment isn’t any different
Click to expand...

One word to this moronic bullshit: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I'm glad you admit this is nothing more than an unconstitutional effort to force legal gun owners out of the state.
Carry on.
 
archives said:
Tomorrow, probably won’t, but down the road, the more one can lessen accessibility to guns today effects the greater number of guns in circulation later. And it isn’t the gangbanger doing the mass shootings in schools, malls, churches, theaters, retirement homes, places of employment, salons, outdoor concerts, etc.
Click to expand...

The easiest way to reduce gun violence is putting the violent criminals doing it away. But all over Democratically controlled urban shitholes they have AGs who want to keep releasing violent perps unto the streets.

Then idiots like you blame the peaceful and legal gun owners. That's the definition of moronic. :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top