Finally, intelligent gun regulations

I don’t believe owning a gun is necessary for safety. I have never owned a gun to protect myself.

That's priceless. This isn't about YOU dimwit. This is about a Constitutional right. You don't want to own one, that's called choice. Something else you Fascists on the left don't like.

How does making LEGAL gun ownership harder going to reduce crime?
:palm:
 
I don't give a fuck who you voted for because the bottom line is only one of two people is likely to be elected the Dems or the repub. You feel better voting for harry dicksucker I couldn't care less it doesn't change the fact that enough idiots elected Brandon. If that's not you then fuck you and your mother.

You obviously do care because you're having a conniption over it. The fact you hate democracy and favor shredding the Constitution is well known.
 
This is good. Explain to me in detail how this law would have prevented "...some dimwit massacring elementary school children with semi automatic weapons." I sincerely want to hear your answer.

Well I think the answer is obvious! You see, the psychopath who wants to shoot up the elementary school is supposed walk into a gun store, fondle that sweet AR for awhile, decide that that’s his baby and then finds out he has to pay an annual “fee” to the city AND buy “insurance”.

Well hell! That should be enough to return him to sanity right there! He’s gonna lay down that AR, walk outta that store and join the seminary…or maybe just become a serial killer, I don’t know.
 
I HIGHLY doubt this would survive a challenge with right-leaning justices in the SCOTUS.

The NRA will - I assume - argue that the law precludes poor people from their '2nd Amendment right'.

Taxation is not the way to limit gun proliferation in America.

Gun proliferation is not the problem or the issue. Criminal proliferation is. Refusing to keep them incarcerated is. Try to THINK before you type. :palm:
 
...and if Texas or the Feds required extra insurance and fees "for the children", would you be fine with that?

The fact you are avoiding is that imposing fees on rights doesn't hurt the rich, some in the middle class can afford it if they budgeted for it and the poor are fucked over once again.

How is this even about the rich? Get your empty head out of your asshole. :palm:
 
Gun proliferation is not the problem or the issue. Criminal proliferation is. Refusing to keep them incarcerated is. Try to THINK before you type. :palm:

STRAWMAN.

My post was strictly to do with the chances of the law passing the SCOTUS.

What you wish me to discuss is irrelevant.
 
I don’t believe owning a gun is necessary for safety. I have never owned a gun to protect myself.

Are you speaking for 330M Americans or just yourself?

Fine, it's your choice, but you are not saying "I don't want to own a gun". You're saying "I don't want YOU to own a gun" but mostly it's the poor people who you'll be depriving of their rights.

Not a lawyer, but I'm smart enough to pick up on the concept of "precedence" since it comes up a lot. The more you and others chip away at rights, not only will we have less rights, but you are empowering government to further restrict those rights.

Do you really want all of our rights to be determined by who can afford them?
 
Onerous to have an ID? It's tough to take you retards seriously. I know you have malformed brains but that's not my fault

I guess the leftist idiots think two weeks of voting, a month to get absentee votes in and ID are onerous things.....except when it comes to Covid. Then you need ID and a vaccine pass. :palm:
 
Remember the lefties don't think black people are smart enough to get an ID so expecting them to have one is "onerous".

Racist leftists also think that blacks are too stupid to live without Government assistance too. That's a definition for Racism. ;)
 
Are you speaking for 330M Americans or just yourself?

Fine, it's your choice, but you are not saying "I don't want to own a gun". You're saying "I don't want YOU to own a gun" but mostly it's the poor people who you'll be depriving of their rights.

Not a lawyer, but I'm smart enough to pick up on the concept of "precedence" since it comes up a lot. The more you and others chip away at rights, not only will we have less rights, but you are empowering government to further restrict those rights.

Do you really want all of our rights to be determined by who can afford them?
No, I’m not saying that. You have a bad habit of stating things I have never said.
 
You obviously do care because you're having a conniption over it. The fact you hate democracy and favor shredding the Constitution is well known.

STRAWMAN ALERT. I don't think low IQ assholes like you can post without looking retarded, lying or pontificating triggered strawmen. :palm:
 
Well I think the answer is obvious! You see, the psychopath who wants to shoot up the elementary school is supposed walk into a gun store, fondle that sweet AR for awhile, decide that that’s his baby and then finds out he has to pay an annual “fee” to the city AND buy “insurance”.

Well hell! That should be enough to return him to sanity right there! He’s gonna lay down that AR, walk outta that store and join the seminary…or maybe just become a serial killer, I don’t know.

:laugh:

:thumbsup:
 
Maybe Democrats will realize their mistakes when the red tsunami hits them in November? Nah, Democrats are too fucking stupid to see anything past their upturned noses.

The president's party almost always loses seats in mid-term elections so it has nothing to do with "mistakes". Trump lost 41 and Obama lost 60.

We would see the same economy if Trump was still in office.
 
Just another reason why only the rich have swimming pools and the poor ride buses. LOL

I know lots and lots of middle-class ppl with backyard pools. They are not just for the wealthy. Most municipalities -- and insurance carriers -- require that a pool (aka "attractive nuisance") be securely fenced in with a locking gate when not in use.
 
”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

More asinine leftist idiocy.

There is no CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE A CAR, OR TO DRIVE.



THE SAN JOSE "LAW" WILL BE STRUCK DOWN ANON....
 
Back
Top