Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

You can always count on the liberal media not to let a tragedy go to waste...... theyre already blaming republicans on the boston attack.

[Sinfix_15]

So I can just as easily defeat a tyrannical government with this...

http://henryrepeating.com/images/rifles/h005-minibolt-details.jpg

As I can with this?

http://grungepaintball.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/paintball-rifles-1363.jpg

Nope, the AR15, while being one of the most popular hunting rifles in the country..... has the bonus effect of being a formidable anti-assault weapon. It's like buying the truck that can tow 8000 lbs when your trailer only weighs 3000 lbs..... because who knows, maybe one day you will need to tow 8000 lbs.

Capability doesnt equal intent.

Every car on the road has the ability to speed.

[Sinfix_15]

CNN National Security Analyst Warns Of (http://patdollard.com/2013/04/cnn-national-security-analyst-warns-of-right-wing-extremists-behind-boston-bombings/)

The media cannot be trusted to accurately portray our government, yet we are suppose to trust in either of them.

[.blank cd]

So then in any given instance, an AR-15 is, in fact, without a doubt, more capable than a typical hunting rifle?

[bu villain]

You can always count on the liberal media not to let a tragedy go to waste...... theyre already blaming republicans on the boston attack.

wrong thread

[Sinfix_15]

So then in any given instance, an AR-15 is, in fact, without a doubt, more capable than a typical hunting rifle?

As is a corvette over a cavalier. Both at the discretion of their owners capable of either abiding by laws or breaking them. Buying a corvette doesnt make you speed, drive drunk or do anything irresponsible. Limiting everyone to cavaliers wouldnt stop those who wish to speed and drive drunk from doing so either. The only thing you would gain is politicians feeling more confident in their rides in the event of a street race breaking out.

[Sinfix_15]

wrong thread

No. It's a terrorist attack that happened without the use of a gun. Showing that evil people are evil...... guns dont make it so.

[bu villain]

No. It's a terrorist attack that happened without the use of a gun. Showing that evil people are evil...... guns dont make it so.

I think you are stretching a bit hard here. No one doubts crimes are committed quite regularly without the use of guns. I don't even think Feinstein would argue that people are only evil if they have a gun. Also you stated democrats are blaming republicans, not guns so how does that statement relate to this discussion?

[.blank cd]

As is a corvette over a cavalier. Both at the discretion of their owners capable of either abiding by laws or breaking them. Buying a corvette doesnt make you speed, drive drunk or do anything irresponsible. Limiting everyone to cavaliers wouldnt stop those who wish to speed and drive drunk from doing so either. The only thing you would gain is politicians feeling more confident in their rides in the event of a street race breaking out.

Ok, so would you agree that it's not really a great idea for everyone in the world to be able to drive a corvette at full tilt, over a cavalier at full tilt?

[Sinfix_15]

I think you are stretching a bit hard here. No one doubts crimes are committed quite regularly without the use of guns. I don't even think Feinstein would argue that people are only evil if they have a gun. Also you stated democrats are blaming republicans, not guns so how does that statement relate to this discussion?

Democrats are the biggest threat to guns on this planet. Pointing out their propaganda used to manipulate the emotions of the masses.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok, so would you agree that it's not really a great idea for everyone in the world to be able to drive a corvette at full tilt, over a cavalier at full tilt?

When owner of said corvette is caught speeding, suspend his license. Until then.... leave him alone and let him enjoy his corvette.

[.blank cd]

When owner of said corvette is caught speeding, suspend his license. Until then.... leave him alone and let him enjoy his corvette.

So you have a reactive approach to governance. Don't do anything until it happens. Don't prevent it from happening?

[David88vert]

Ok, so would you agree that it's not really a great idea for everyone in the world to be able to drive a corvette at full tilt, over a cavalier at full tilt?

Critical thinking - you just showed that it is beyond your abilities.

[.blank cd]

Critical thinking - you just showed that it is beyond your abilities.

So do you agree or disagree?

BTW, critical thinking does not mean think like me or you're an idiot. So I don't even know why you posted that.

[David88vert]

So you have a reactive approach to governance. Don't do anything until it happens. Don't prevent it from happening?

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

[Sinfix_15]

So you have a reactive approach to governance. Don't do anything until it happens. Don't prevent it from happening?

Banning cars would prevent car accidents. The "good" done by banning cars far out weighs that of guns. "if we can save one life".................



When you start removing freedom for the sake of safety, you are no longer free. Freedom is dangerous. - Thomas Jefferson

[Sinfix_15]

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

Hogwash.... nothing more than a system that our president is constrained by.

[David88vert]

So do you agree or disagree?

You assume that everyone is just going to break the law and drive at full tilt?

[.blank cd]

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

Yes. It seems like you haven't, because this concept is irrelevant to the discussion.

[.blank cd]

You assume that everyone is just going to break the law and drive at full tilt?

No. I'm not assuming that. Do you agree or disagree, that's the only question Im prompting here.

[.blank cd]

Trying to get you gun nuts to think outside your small box of reality. It's tough, but I know we can do it.

[bu villain]

Democrats are the biggest threat to guns on this planet. Pointing out their propaganda used to manipulate the emotions of the masses.

On the planet huh?

[Sinfix_15]

Yes. It seems like you haven't, because this concept is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is relevant.....

You base your actions on the misuse of a tool. You declare the users of that tool guilty before they commit a crime, based on the tool's ability to be used in a crime.

[David88vert]

No. I'm not assuming that. Do you agree or disagree, that's the only question Im prompting here.

You stated the question specifically with that wording, did you not?

Why should I answer your question with anything other than a question?

[.blank cd]

Banning cars would prevent car accidents. The "good" done by banning cars far out weighs that of guns. "if we can save one life"your legs must be cramped from all that jumping to conclusions. Just slow down and answer the question. I didnt say anything about banning cars yet.

[Sinfix_15]

On the planet huh?

Yep.

[Sinfix_15]

your legs must be cramped from all that jumping to conclusions. Just slow down and answer the question. I didnt say anything about banning cars yet.

It's easier to kill people with an AR15 than it is a bolt action 22. Do we ban the AR15 based on that ability? or punish the misuse?
It's easier to speed in a corvette than it is a cavalier. Do we ban the corvette based on that ability? or punish the misuse?

[.blank cd]

You stated the question specifically with that wording, did you not?

Why should I answer your question with anything other than a question?

I don't care what you answer it with. I'm not assuming everyone is driving at full tilt. Do you agree or disagree that it's not a great idea to have everyone in the world driving a Corvette at full tilt, over a cavalier?

[bu villain]

Yep.

someone should warn all the foreign guns.

[David88vert]

Trying to get you gun nuts to think outside your small box of reality. It's tough, but I know we can do it.

Why would you assume that some one is a gun nut just because they stand up for the Constitution and the Amendments?

Why do you think that you have a grasp on reality and others don't?

[David88vert]

I don't care what you answer it with. I'm not assuming everyone is driving at full tilt. Do you agree or disagree that it's not a great idea to have everyone in the world driving a Corvette at full tilt, over a cavalier?

Its a bogus question. You would know that if you had a degree in psychology.

Cars and drivers are not limited to being used at full ability, nor have to be used at all.

[Sinfix_15]

someone should warn all the foreign guns.

Theyre already well aware.

[.blank cd]

Why would you assume that some one is a gun nut just because they stand up for the Constitution and the Amendments?

Why do you think that you have a grasp on reality and others don't?

Because you or Sinfix haven't really demonstrated this yet. The reality is even after an assault weapons ban, you'll still be able to purchase an assault weapon. I don't understand how people believe you won't be able to. It's baffling my mind right now.

[Sinfix_15]

Why would you assume that some one is a gun nut just because they stand up for the Constitution and the Amendments?

Why do you think that you have a grasp on reality and others don't?

He is delusional.

[David88vert]

Because you or Sinfix haven't really demonstrated this yet. The reality is even after an assault weapons ban, you'll still be able to purchase an assault weapon. I don't understand how people believe you won't be able to. It's baffling my mind right now.



I never claimed that you would no longer be able to buy an assault weapon at all. You make these ridiculous assumptions on your own, so you are confusing yourself. Im trying to help you understand reality.

[Sinfix_15]

Because you or Sinfix haven't really demonstrated this yet. The reality is even after an assault weapons ban, you'll still be able to purchase an assault weapon. I don't understand how people believe you won't be able to. It's baffling my mind right now.

We should never legalize weed, since banning it and spending billions of dollars to prevent it's use hasnt stopped people from using it. People who risk legal punishment to acquire weed should take comfort in knowing that even though weed is illegal, the government isnt competent enough to enforce the law.


You are baffling my mind right now.

[.blank cd]

Its a bogus question. You would know that if you had a degree in psychology.

Cars and drivers are not limited to being used at full ability, nor have to be used at all.

1. its not a bogus question. I agree its not a great idea for everyone to be able to drive a Vette. Some people can not handle its capability, or the consequences that come with the capability. Mentally or physically.

2. I haven't said at all that they are limited to being used at full capacity. The available capability is there from the second you purchase it, so we must assume that the cars full capability is available to everyone that purchases one.

[.blank cd]

What are some ways we already employ to restrict people from purchasing cars with high capabilities, policy or otherwise?

[.blank cd]

We should never legalize weed, since banning it and spending billions of dollars to prevent it's use hasnt stopped people from using it. People who risk legal punishment to acquire weed should take comfort in knowing that even though weed is illegal, the government isnt competent enough to enforce the law.


You are baffling my mind right now.

There is more than a ban in place when it comes to weed. You know this. You can't compare the two. Sorry.

[David88vert]

What are some ways we already employ to restrict people from purchasing cars with high capabilities, policy or otherwise?

If you get caught going over 30 mph over the speed limit, it doesn't matter what type of car you are in, or if you are at the limit of the cars abilities.

[David88vert]

There is more than a ban in place when it comes to weed. You know this. You can't compare the two. Sorry.

Sure you can. Weed is illegal but that hasn't done anything to keep people from buying it, using it, or growing it. These people still choose to be criminals.

Guns would be no different.

[.blank cd]

If you get caught going over 30 mph over the speed limit, it doesn't matter what type of car you are in, or if you are at the limit of the cars abilities.

Ok. You can get a speeding ticket. That is a reactive solution to really powerful cars. What are some proactive methods we use to stop people from committing crimes in very capable cars?

[David88vert]

1. its not a bogus question. I agree its not a great idea for everyone to be able to drive a Vette. Some people can not handle its capability, or the consequences that come with the capability. Mentally or physically.

2. I haven't said at all that they are limited to being used at full capacity. The available capability is there from the second you purchase it, so we must assume that the cars full capability is available to everyone that purchases one.



You can't assume that people will just incorrectly use it though.

[.blank cd]

Sure you can. Weed is illegal but that hasn't done anything to keep people from buying it, using it, or growing it. These people still choose to be criminals.

Yes, weed is illegal, and people who use it are choosing to be criminals. Can you tell me how weed is different than guns?

[Sinfix_15]

Yes, weed is illegal, and people who use it are choosing to be criminals. Can you tell me how weed is different than guns?

So your argument is that we shouldnt care if assault weapons are banned because we can still acquire them illegally?

do you realize how fucking stupid that is?

[.blank cd]

You can't assume that people will just incorrectly use it though.
Again. I am not assuming all people are going to use it incorrectly. I am assuming that in any given high end sports car, that the cars full capabilities are available to anyone that purchases one. Is that incorrect?

[David88vert]

Ok. You can get a speeding ticket. That is a reactive solution to really powerful cars. What are some proactive methods we use to stop people from committing crimes in very capable cars?

Driving is a priviledge, not a Constitutional right.
For 30 over, you usually will have your license suspended and a monetary fine. You can easily spend some time in jail if the officer chooses to arrest you as well.
We do not force throttle or speed limiters on cars to limit them to the speed limit. People are expected to know to be responsible.

[Echonova]

If we could save just one life ...Let me be clear... No system is going to be perfect.



But, I..I..I.I.I.I.III...I know, if Congress will get serious about this. We can all agree on a balanced approach.

[.blank cd]

So your argument is that we shouldnt care if assault weapons are banned because we can still acquire them illegally?

do you realize how fucking stupid that is?

I'm not even comparing weed to guns at all! Lol.

Jump jump jump jump jump jump jump jump. Conclusions'll make ya....

[David88vert]

Yes, weed is illegal, and people who use it are choosing to be criminals. Can you tell me how weed is different than guns?

Sure. Weed hampers your judgment when you are in an altered state. Guns don't enter your body and do that. Perhaps you are on an altered state as you don't seem to understand something so simple.

[Sinfix_15]

Let me be clear... No system is going to be perfect.



But, I..I..I.I.I.I.III...I know, if Congress will get serious about this. We can all agree on a balanced approach.

Congress is getting serious about denying the over reaches of the radical left that are in an effort to strip us of our constitutional rights. Thankfully there's people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.......

[David88vert]

Again. I am not assuming all people are going to use it incorrectly. I am assuming that in any given high end sports car, that the cars full capabilities are available to anyone that purchases one. Is that incorrect?

You must have bought a slow car, like a Civic, if you are asking this question.

[.blank cd]

For 30 over, you usually will have your license suspended and a monetary fine. You can easily spend some time in jail if the officer chooses to arrest you as well.What are some proactive methods we already employ to limit the number of crimes committed with cars, policy or otherwise?

[David88vert]

I'm not even comparing weed to guns at all! Lol.

Jump jump jump jump jump jump jump jump. Conclusions'll make ya....

You keep saying that we should learn from you but when we do learn to just jump to conclusions like you do, then you complain. Make up your mind.....

[.blank cd]

You must have bought a slow car, like a Civic, if you are asking this question.Can you or can you not buy a GTR straight off the dealership lot and do 0-60 in under 4 seconds, yes or no? I don't know how I could make that any simpler.

[David88vert]

What are some proactive methods we already employ to limit the number of crimes committed with cars, policy or otherwise?

We do not outlaw/ban any cars based upon their capability to be used illegally. Stay on course.

[.blank cd]

You keep saying that we should learn from you but when we do learn to just jump to conclusions like you do, then you complain. Make up your mind.....

I haven't come to a conclusion yet because the subject keeps getting derailed by stupid comparisons to weed.

[David88vert]

Can you or can you not buy a GTR straight off the dealership lot and do 0-60 in under 4 seconds, yes or no? I don't know how I could make that any simpler.

I can't afford a GTR and I am not a C&D or R&T driver, so no.

[David88vert]

I haven't come to a conclusion yet because the subject keeps getting derailed by stupid comparisons to weed.

Maybe that means you need to smoke some?

[.blank cd]

We do not outlaw/ban any cars based upon their capability to be used illegally. Stay on course.This is false, and i am on course. Sinfix wants an analogy to high powered cars.

So again the question is, what methods, policy or otherwise, do we use to limit people purchasing and using high powered cars?

[Sinfix_15]

This is false, and i am on course. Sinfix wants an analogy to high powered cars.

So again the question is, what methods, policy or otherwise, do we use to limit people purchasing and using high powered cars?

None..... punish people who speed, not for having cars capable of speeding.

[.blank cd]

None..... punish people who speed, not for having cars capable of speeding.

No one is punished for having a car capable of speeding, and everyone is already punished for speeding

What is a way we already control who gets highly capable cars?

[David88vert]

This is false, and i am on course. Sinfix wants an analogy to high powered cars.

So again the question is, what methods, policy or otherwise, do we use to limit people purchasing and using high powered cars?

Give me a list of cars that we are not allowed to purchase based on their ability to go in excess of 70mph.

[David88vert]

No one is punished for having a car capable of speeding, and everyone is already punished for speeding

What is a way we already control who gets highly capable cars?

Define highly capable car.

[.blank cd]

Define highly capable car.

Sinfix said corvette. So anything north of that. Vette's, lambos, Ferrari's, GTR's.

[.blank cd]

Give me a list of cars that we are not allowed to purchase based on their ability to go in excess of 70mph.

Whoa, don't get ahead of yourself. I said "limit"....

[Sinfix_15]

No one is punished for having a car capable of speeding, and everyone is already punished for speeding

What is a way we already control who gets highly capable cars?

Obama stand in front of the cameras with a group of drunk driving victims and says " these poor kids were slaughtered by a corvette owner..... people dont need to have cars as capable as a corvette..... these poor kids didnt stand a chance of moving out of the corvettes way...... if we can save one life, then we have to try..... i support banning corvettes...... we deserve a vote....... these kids deserve a vote........ atlanta deserves a vote...... newyork deserves a vote"

Banning corvettes is punishment to everyone who owns and enjoys them responsibly, its also punishment to the manufacturers or corvettes.....

[David88vert]

Sinfix said corvette. So anything north of that. Vette's, lambos, Ferrari's, GTR's.

What about Honda Accords? They go way over the speed limit. In fact, what cars do we have that CAN'T go over the speed limit?

[David88vert]

Whoa, don't get ahead of yourself. I said "limit"....

I'm just keeping it on course with the gun discussion. Give me a list.

[Sinfix_15]

Whoa, don't get ahead of yourself. I said "limit"....

Speed limits.....


there, im playing this game. Make your point so it can be easily refuted.

[.blank cd]

I'm just keeping it on course with the gun discussion. Give me a list.

Keeping on course, all the cars I listed above are "limited" in some fashion due to their excessive capability. It's not exactly government policy....

[.blank cd]

Speed limits.....


there, im playing this game. Make your point so it can be easily refuted.

I've already made my point. Higher powered cars are limited in some fashion..

[David88vert]

Keeping on course ll the cars I listed above are "limited" in some fashion due to their excessive capability. It's not exactly government policy....

If its not government policy, then it isn't relevant and as I stated it was a bogus question.

Thanks for playing. Come back with a realistic scenario.

[David88vert]

I've already made my point. Higher powered cars are limited in some fashion..

You've already made the point that you didn't know what you were talking about.
No cars are banned because of their ability to exceed speed limits.

[.blank cd]

If its not government policy, then it isn't relevant and as I stated it was a bogus question.

Thanks for playing. Come back with a realistic scenario.

Its a very realistic scenario. You refused to think about the answer, so I guess I defeated you. You are not an out of the box thinker. Thanks for playing.

[.blank cd]

You've already made the point that you didn't know what you were talking about.
No cars are banned because of their ability to exceed speed limits.

There are government policies as well. I'm trying to help y'all come to a conclusion on your own. If I tell you the answer, you don't learn anything

All the cars I listed are "limited" in some fashion, government policy or otherwise. What are those fashions?

[David88vert]

Its a very realistic scenario. You refused to think about the answer, so I guess I defeated you. Thanks for playing.

You are retarded. That seems to be only possible answer to your posts.

[.blank cd]

You are retarded. That seems to be only possible answer to your posts.

So you admit you don't know the answer?

[David88vert]

There are government policies as well. I'm trying to help y'all come to a conclusion on your own. If I tell you the answer, you don't learn anything

All the cars I listed are "limited" in some fashion, government policy or otherwise. What are those fashions?



Prove my statement wrong. Name a car that is not allowed to be manufactured, imported, or sold due to its ability to exceed the speed limit.

[Sinfix_15]

There are government policies as well. I'm trying to help y'all come to a conclusion on your own. If I tell you the answer, you don't learn anything

All the cars I listed are "limited" in some fashion, government policy or otherwise. What are those fashions?

Please inform me of these limitations.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Shock_Wave_Jet_Truck.jpg/800px-Shock_Wave_Jet_Truck.jpg

[David88vert]

So you admit you don't know the answer?

The answer you want to strive for is a tangent and not relevant to the points being made about gun regulations.

[.blank cd]

Prove my statement wrong. Name a car that is not allowed to be manufactured, imported, or sold due to its ability to exceed the speed limit.

I never suggested any cars are not allowed to be manufactured imported or sold based on its ability to exceed the speed limit. I said and I quote "what are some ways these cars are limited due to their capabilities? I didn't say banned, I didn't say unable to be sold or manufactured. Just read what I posted. Don't read anything else.

[.blank cd]

The answer you want to strive for is a tangent and not relevant to the points being made about gun regulations.

It is incredibly relevant. It couldn't be more relevant. If you know an answer than give one.

[David88vert]

I never suggested any cars are not allowed to be manufactured imported or sold based on its ability to exceed the speed limit. I said and I quote "what are some ways these cars are limited due to their capabilities? I didn't say banned, I didn't say unable to be sold or manufactured. Just read what I posted. Don't read anything else.

That's all you need to say. You don't have a scenario then that compares with the current gin control bill. That bill and its structure are what is relevant.

[.blank cd]

That's all you need to say. You don't have a scenario then that compares with the current gin control bill. That bill and its structure are what is relevant.

I'm not looking for a scenario that compares to what you think the bill is. That's stupid. I don't know why anyone would do that.

What are some ways these cars I mentioned are limited? Answer that and I'll tell you how it's relevant.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not looking for a scenario that compares to what you think the bill is.

What are some ways these cars I mentioned are limited? Answer that and I'll tell you how it's relevant.

theyre not limited. if you believe they are, then say how

[.blank cd]

theyre not limited. if you believe they are, then say how

They're very limited. I'm trying to see if you guys understand how.

Think of any possible way, when I'm drawing up plans for a GTR, how I could keep it out of the hands of someone who isn't able to handle its capabilities.

[David88vert]

I'm not looking for a scenario that compares to what you think the bill is. That's stupid. I don't know why anyone would do that.

What are some ways these cars I mentioned are limited? Answer that and I'll tell you how it's relevant.

They are not limited in regards to their abilities to be used in illegal activities.
They do have luxury taxes and some have import duties but those are not based upon their physical capabilities.

[David88vert]

They're very limited. I'm trying to see if you guys understand how.

Think of any possible way, when I'm drawing up plans for a GTR, how I could keep it out of the hands of someone who isn't able to handle its capabilities.

There is none. If you have the money, you can purchase the car without an approval process being run by the federal government. You don't even have to register the car or have a license.

[.blank cd]

If you have the money,you can purchase the car without an approval process being run by the federal government. You don't even have to register the car or have a license.
You're on the right track!

[Sinfix_15]

I've had my fill of liberal rhetoric for the night. Blank getting beat like a pinata as usual. Until next time.......

[David88vert]

You're on the right track!

Private sales between individuals have no limitations, so why try to change that with a select group of rifles?

[.blank cd]

Private sales between individuals have no limitations, so why try to change that with a select group of rifles?

Why not?

And BTW, there is one, maybe two more limitations on those cars that would affect a private sale....

[David88vert]

Why not?


Do you believe that we should just pass legislation because we can pass it?

[.blank cd]

Do you believe that we should just pass legislation because we can pass it?

Nope. I believe we pass legislation to change something.

[David88vert]

Nope. I believe we pass legislation to change something.

On what foundation do you determine if something should be changed?

[David88vert]

Why not?

And BTW, there is one, maybe two more limitations on those cars that would affect a private sale....

You went back and edited.

There is no government limitation on private sales of car between US citizens. If I want to purchase a Lamborghini tonight from another private citizen (and I have enough) then I can purchase it without a background check, or waiting for a government approval. I do not even have to have a drivers license if I only use it on my own property, nor do I have to get a tag for it in every county (some counties have regulations concerning tags in their county, but there is no federal mandate). I simply purchase it, and I can do with it as I want, as long as I do not violate any standard laws - like killing someone.

Why shouldn't semi-automatic rifles be the same way? Why shouldn't a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle and an AR-15 be treated identically? Either can be used in the same manner, and one cannot make a person "more dead" than the other.

[.blank cd]

On what foundation do you determine if something should be changed?

If there's something wrong with what's in place.

[.blank cd]

You went back and edited.

There is no government limitation on private sales of car between US citizens. If I want to purchase a Lamborghini tonight from another private citizen (and I have enough) then I can purchase it without a background check, or waiting for a government approval. I do not even have to have a drivers license if I only use it on my own property, nor do I have to get a tag for it in every county (some counties have regulations concerning tags in their county, but there is no federal mandate). I simply purchase it, and I can do with it as I want, as long as I do not violate any standard laws - like killing someone.

Why shouldn't semi-automatic rifles be the same way? Why shouldn't a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle and an AR-15 be treated identically? Either can be used in the same manner, and one cannot make a person "more dead" than the other.

You answered the question already. The question was what limits do we already have in place for these high powered cars to prevent speeding and accidents. Purchase price is the limitation. Insurance cost is the other, registration costs are another, limited production runs are another. These limitations, directly or indirectly keep people from breaking laws and injuring other people.

We aren't talking about how we use them on private property, cause if its paid for sitting in your garage, you're probably not speeding, and its also probably not necessary for you to use such a car for your survival.

And all guns should be treated the same way. It shouldn't be as easy as it is for a criminal to get one.

[David88vert]

If there's something wrong with what's in place.

As in based upon an opinion? Who decides who's opinion is right then?
There is a correct answer - I just want to see if you know it.

[.blank cd]

As in based upon an opinion? Who decides who's opinion is right then?
There is a correct answer - I just want to see if you know it.

If we've concluded that its far too easy for criminals to get guns, that a discussion should be raised on how to limit that, and any option should be explored

[David88vert]

You answered the question already. The question was what limits do we already have in place for these high powered cars to prevent speeding and accidents. Purchase price is the limitation. Insurance cost is the other, registration costs are another, limited production runs are another. These limitations, directly or indirectly keep people from breaking laws and injuring other people.

We aren't talking about how we use them on private property, cause if its paid for sitting in your garage, you're probably not speeding, and its also probably not necessary for you to use such a car for your survival.

And all guns should be treated the same way. It shouldn't be as easy as it is for a criminal to get one.

You are delusional again.

Purchase price is controlled by the law of supply and demand. The federal government does not say, "This car is too fast, we need to raise the price on it to slow people down." They don't regulate on perception that someone might drive beyond their capabilities either - if they did, all Honda Civics would be more expensive than Ferraris - all the kids try to drive them beyond their limits and crash.
ANY car that you buy from the dealership can break the speed limit - even a Jetta TDI. Almost every car that you can buy privately can break the speed limit as well, provided that they aren't half broken down. There are NO price controls on purchase price based upon the car's performance abilities alone - not one.

Registration costs are not involved with the federal government at all. They are local county costs, and have nothing to do with the performance capabilities of the car - simply based on the age and taxable value of the vehicle. They have no effect on controlling the driving habits of individuals, nor were they ever intended to.

Insurance costs are not related to regulation by the federal government based upon the capabilities of the car. The federal government does not even require you to have insurance on your car. Insurance is mandated in GA at a state level - and if you use your car on public roads. Track-only cars do not typically have insurance or registration at all, as it is not required. Insurance companies charge rates on what they perceive the risk is, not from any federal table of cost to performance capability.

Limited production runs? Really? Those are controlled by the manufacturer, and have nothing to do with any regulations. They are solely marketing methods to generate the most profit for the manufacturer. Did you even take Economics 101?

What you listed isn't even remotely related to government regulations and laws in keeping people from breaking laws. if you truly believe the drivel that you just typed, you probably should not have a driver's license.

Private property does not have to be inside your garage. It can be on any non-public road, field, farm, etc. Race cars, tractors, farm trucks, etc, are usually not registered or tagged, or driven on public roads - and you can speed as much as you like on private property.

As for firearms, have you tried to purchase an AR15? They already have a much higher cost than a .30-.30 or .308, just like a Ferrari is more expensive than a Honda.

[David88vert]

If we've concluded that its far too easy for criminals to get guns, that a discussion should be raised on how to limit that, and any option should be explored

Who is we? And how do you define conclusion? What calculations and definitions are being used for "far too easy"?
You still didn't answer what the foundation is. You appear not to know, but I'll wait for you to do some critical thinking. Just spout it out.

[.blank cd]

You are delusional again.

Purchase price is controlled by the law of supply and demand. The federal government does not say, "This car is too fast, we need to raise the price on it to slow people down." They don't regulate on perception that someone might drive beyond their capabilities either - if they did, all Honda Civics would be more expensive than Ferraris - all the kids try to drive them beyond their limits and crash.
ANY car that you buy from the dealership can break the speed limit - even a Jetta TDI. Almost every car that you can buy privately can break the speed limit as well, provided that they aren't half broken down. There are NO price controls on purchase price based upon the car's performance abilities alone - not one.

Registration costs are not involved with the federal government at all. They are local county costs, and have nothing to do with the performance capabilities of the car - simply based on the age and taxable value of the vehicle. They have no effect on controlling the driving habits of individuals, nor were they ever intended to.

Insurance costs are not related to regulation by the federal government based upon the capabilities of the car. The federal government does not even require you to have insurance on your car. Insurance is mandated in GA at a state level - and if you use your car on public roads. Track-only cars do not typically have insurance or registration at all, as it is not required. Insurance companies charge rates on what they perceive the risk is, not from any federal table of cost to performance capability.

Limited production runs? Really? Those are controlled by the manufacturer, and have nothing to do with any regulations. They are solely marketing methods to generate the most profit for the manufacturer. Did you even take Economics 101?

What you listed isn't even remotely related to government regulations and laws in keeping people from breaking laws. if you truly believe the drivel that you just typed, you probably should not have a driver's license.

Private property does not have to be inside your garage. It can be on any non-public road, field, farm, etc. Race cars, tractors, farm trucks, etc, are usually not registered or tagged, or driven on public roads - and you can speed as much as you like on private property.

As for firearms, have you tried to purchase an AR15? They already have a much higher cost than a .30-.30 or .308, just like a Ferrari is more expensive than a Honda.

You sure have to force yourself to believe the things you do don't you. Lol.

So now that you have a better understanding of price controls. Do you think there would be more or less accidents if brand new Ferrari's were $10k, and only $50 a month to insure?

[David88vert]

You sure have to force yourself to believe the things you do don't you. Lol.

So now that you have a better understanding of price controls. Do you think there would be more or less accidents if brand new Ferrari's were $10k, and only $50 a month to insure?

I live in reality, a place that is very foreign to you.
What part of the government does not control the price of cars do you not understand? You stated some obvious false statements, and I called you out on them. You can't just admit you are flat-out wrong, instead you have to try to find some why to try to justify your fantasy.

I already understand the costs associated with cars - I've owned a lot of cars, and still have several. You appear to not have much knowledge though concerning what the costs actually are for, and who controls them.

You claim that you studied economics, but I have a hard time believing that, since you wouldn't have even made it through JA in HS with what you are spouting.

Ferrari sets the price of Ferraris - they aren't magically cheaper outside of the US. You didn't know that?

If you want to talk performance to cost - I can buy an old Mustang for $10K, and pay $50/month for insurance, and have more horsepower and torque than a new Ferrari. Where are the price controls on that?

[David88vert]

I still waiting on you to answer "On what foundation do you determine if something should be changed?"

If you can't answer it, just say so. Here's a hint - you are talking about a legal change.

[.blank cd]

It's not a fantasy. I just gave you an analogy of how we control guns through policy. Simple as that. This is what happens. This is economics 101. You read too much into the analogy. If you put as much effort trying to understand gun control as you do trying to figure out ways to tell me I'm wrong (and fail at in the process), we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

This is how you control guns with contractionary policy, and contractionary policy happens all over the place. Im not arguing something thats debatable, and its not my opinion. That's what contractionary policy is, and either you disagree with its implementation or you agree with it. It's like you're trying to argue that subtraction isn't a thing.

Stop with the banning=confiscation thing. It's tired.

[.blank cd]

I still waiting on you to answer "On what foundation do you determine if something should be changed?"

If you can't answer it, just say so. Here's a hint - you are talking about a legal change.

What do you mean "on what foundation?"

[David88vert]

It's not a fantasy. I just gave you an analogy of how we control guns through policy. Simple as that. This is what happens. This is economics 101. You read too much into the analogy. If you put as much effort trying to understand gun control as you do trying to figure out ways to tell me I'm wrong (and fail at in the process), we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

This is how you control guns with contractionary policy, and contractionary policy happens all over the place. Im not arguing something thats debatable, and its not my opinion. That's what contractionary policy is, and either you disagree with its implementation or you agree with it. It's like you're trying to argue that subtraction isn't a thing.

Stop with the banning=confiscation thing. It's tired.

You are definitely in a fantasy world. Not one of the items that you stated are pricing control policies from the federal government. Not one. Show me these policies and their legal foundation for the regulation of these pieces of private property. Give the actual laws on them, not just your delusional opinion.

Where did I say anything about confiscation? Again, you fail miserably.

[David88vert]

What do you mean "on what foundation?"

The foundation of all of our laws is our Constitution and the Amendments. You seem to think that these were designed to just be changed whenever someone felt their opinion was right. That's not how our legal system was constructed.

[.blank cd]

You are definitely in a fantasy world. Not one of the items that you stated are pricing control policies from the federal government. Not one. Show me these policies and their legal foundation for the regulation of these pieces of private property. Give the actual laws on them, not just your delusional opinion.

Where did I say anything about confiscation? Again, you fail miserably.And I never said they were pricing control policies from the federal government, did I? Or did you read too deep into it?
Contractionary policy isn't a law. It's methods the government uses to control the supply of a commodity. Guns aren't your private property until you buy one.

[.blank cd]

The foundation of all of our laws is our Constitution and the Amendments. You seem to think that these were designed to just be changed whenever someone felt their opinion was right. That's not how our legal system was constructed.

Didnt say that either.

Where do you keep coming up with this stuff?

[David88vert]

And I never said they were pricing control policies from the federal government, did I? Or did you read too deep into it?
Contractionary policy isn't a law. It's methods the government uses to control the supply of a commodity. Guns aren't your private property until you buy one.

Backpedaling - that's what you are attempting to do.
The fact is, the government, as in federal government, is not doing anything to regulate car prices based upon their abilities. Re-read the discussion from the last couple of pages. That was your main discussion point, and you have shown that you are not able to tie your arguments together.
You are advocating a federal restriction on manfacturing and importing specific products based upon their capabilities. Cars do not have that restriction, period.

Since you are unable to show any policy on pricing control, it appears that you see that your argument has been completely and utterly defeated, and only your desperation keeps you going.

[David88vert]

Didnt say that either.

Where do you keep coming up with this stuff?

Re-read your postings. Its pretty clear if you utilize critical thinking. Oh wait, that is beyond your capabilities.

[Sinfix_15]

You answered the question already. The question was what limits do we already have in place for these high powered cars to prevent speeding and accidents. Purchase price is the limitation. Insurance cost is the other, registration costs are another, limited production runs are another. These limitations, directly or indirectly keep people from breaking laws and injuring other people.

We aren't talking about how we use them on private property, cause if its paid for sitting in your garage, you're probably not speeding, and its also probably not necessary for you to use such a car for your survival.

And all guns should be treated the same way. It shouldn't be as easy as it is for a criminal to get one.

Purchase price is the limitation?

Ok, so whats the problem then? criminals cant afford $2000 AR15s.... i can....

also.....

I currently own a vehicle that will out run a lamborghini...... it cost me about 2 months pay. The insurance on it is $52/month

[.blank cd]

Purchase price is the limitation?

Ok, so whats the problem then? criminals cant afford $2000 AR15s.... i can...Do you think if AR15s were $500, would more or less people have access to them?

[David88vert]

Do you think if AR15s were $500, would more or less people have access to them?

I'll answer - the same number of people would have access to them. Either you are a felon, and are not legally allowed to purchase one, or you are not a felon, and you have the legal access to purchase one, if you desire to do so.
The price is of guns is controlled by the free market, not government regulations. When people weren't buying them in droves like they currently are, the price was lower. The price jumped up when speculators started buying them, thinking that they might be banned. This isn't just happening now, it happened when the 1994 ban was passed as well.
Price really isn't a limitation though, when it is between $500-$2000. If someone wants something enough to prioritize it, they will generally choose to do without other items in order to get it. It might mean eating out less, not having that morning cup of coffee, etc, but if they want it, they will find a way to purchase it.

[.blank cd]

I'll answer - the same number of people would have access to them. Either you are a felon, and are not legally allowed to purchase one, or you are not a felon, and you have the legal access to purchase one, if you desire to do so.I didn't say the legal ability to purchase one


Price really isn't a limitation though, when it is between $500-$2000. If someone wants something enough to prioritize it, they will generally choose to do without other items in order to get it. It might mean eating out less, not having that morning cup of coffee, etc, but if they want it, they will find a way to purchase it.So you're suggesting that the demand curve for guns is pretty flat, and a pretty steep drop in price (-$1500) won't increase demand?

[David88vert]

I didn't say the legal ability to purchase one

"Access" does not imply ability to afford to purchase one. Access is ability to acquire, period.


So you're suggesting that the demand curve for guns is pretty flat, and a pretty steep drop in price (-$1500) won't increase demand?

No, I did not say that. Use some critical thinking. I made it abundantly clear.

[.blank cd]

No, I did not say that. Use some critical thinking. I made it abundantly clear.Why do you keep answering questions that I didn't ask? I know what access means. I didnt ask if people would prioritize so they could afford them. All I asked was would demand for assault style rifles increase if we dropped the price $1500 or not?

[David88vert]

Why do you keep answering questions that I didn't ask? I know what access means. I didnt ask if people would prioritize so they could afford them. All I asked was would demand for assault style rifles increase if we dropped the price $1500 or not?

You stated that you took economics? Did you not? If you took economics, then why are you even asking this question? The answer though is completely irrelevant to the overall discussion, and is nothing more than a tangent (something that you are very fond of).

[.blank cd]

You stated that you took economics? Did you not? If you took economics, then why are you even asking this question? The answer though is completely irrelevant to the overall discussion, and is nothing more than a tangent (something that you are very fond of).

It's still very relevant. I'm trying to break down contractionary and expansionary policy so you can understand it and its applications better.

Some time between 1776 and now, somewhere along the line, we decided it was in the public interest for the government to regulate firearms. So we do. As time went along, we also figured out that we can manipulate the supply and demand of certain commodities with policy. It works with money, it works with oil, it works with sugar, it works with corn, it can work with just about any kind of commodity you see traded on the stock market, and it works with guns. An externality is a direct or indirect result of such a policy. A policy is a regulation or law that a government or a business or some entity puts in place. Congress could pass a law saying all school children k-12 have to wear uniforms (an example, not that it could or would). An externality would be a sharp decline in the sale/production of blue jeans, or an increase in sales at a specific uniform company.

So, now that you know the basics of expansionary and contractionary policy, and what a policy is, and what an externality is, and that you understand that a decrease in price of a certain commodity results in an increase in demand of that commodity, and in turn, the increase in price of the same commodity results in a decrease in demand, if i was someone who wrote laws and understood this basic concept, what would be a way I could decrease demand for an assault rifle?

[David88vert]

It's still very relevant. I'm trying to break down contractionary and expansionary policy so you can understand it and its applications better.

Some time between 1776 and now, somewhere along the line, we decided it was in the public interest for the government to regulate firearms. So we do. As time went along, we also figured out that we can manipulate the supply and demand of certain commodities with policy. It works with money, it works with oil, it works with sugar, it works with corn, it can work with just about any kind of commodity you see traded on the stock market, and it works with guns. An externality is a direct or indirect result of such a policy. A policy is a regulation or law that a government or a business or some entity puts in place. Congress could pass a law saying all school children k-12 have to wear uniforms (an example, not that it could or would). An externality would be a sharp decline in the sale/production of blue jeans, or an increase in sales at a specific uniform company.

So, now that you know the basics of expansionary and contractionary policy, and what a policy is, and what an externality is, and that you understand that a decrease in price of a certain commodity results in an increase in demand of that commodity, and in turn, the increase in price of the same commodity results in a decrease in demand, if i was someone who wrote laws and understood this basic concept, what would be a way I could decrease demand for an assault rifle?

You still didn't show a government policy to support your earlier claims. Instead, you drivel on without supporting your opinion with factual statements.

The first federal law regarding gun control, other than the Second Amendment, wasn't until 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was implemented under FDR's leadership, during the sensationalistic crime era of the gangsters. National Firearms Act of 1934 legal definition of National Firearms Act of 1934. National Firearms Act of 1934 synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+Firearms+Act+of+1934)
Do you see any resemblance to current legislation tactics?
Now, did that law stop gangsters from killing, or did more aggressive enforcement of non-weapons related laws spell the doom of the gangster era?

Now, as to firearms and taxes, that is specifically already spelled out in law. Read 26 USC § 5801
26 USC § 5801 - Imposition of tax | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5801)

You may think that you have knowledge, but in reality, I am already well-versed in pretty much every subject that you have tried to intertwine as tangents, and I keep my eye on the intent of the discussion.

Fact is - you have failed to back up your statements over the last couple of pages, and are simply attempting to deflect attention from your inability to support your own statements.

[.blank cd]

You still didn't show a government policy to support your earlier claims. Instead, you drivel on without supporting your opinion with factual statements.WHAT opinion? I haven't posted an opinion at all. Lol. Please quote exactly what I said that you believe is my opinion.

What claim are you talking about?


The first federal law regarding gun control, other than the Second Amendment, wasn't until 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was implemented under FDR's leadership, during the sensationalistic crime era of the gangsters. National Firearms Act of 1934 legal definition of National Firearms Act of 1934. National Firearms Act of 1934 synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+Firearms+Act+of+1934)
Do you see any resemblance to current legislation tactics?
Now, did that law stop gangsters from killing, or did more aggressive enforcement of non-weapons related laws spell the doom of the gangster era?

Now, as to firearms and taxes, that is specifically already spelled out in law. Read 26 USC § 5801
26 USC § 5801 - Imposition of tax | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5801)What. Is. Your. Point?


You may think that you have knowledge, but in reality, I am already well-versed in pretty much every subject that you have tried to intertwine as tangentsObviously not since you're arguing that basic economic concepts somehow don't exist. You're keeping an eye on the way YOU want the discussion to go: off on a straw man. And when you say tangents, do you mean like starting a discussion about imposing taxes on guns, that no one is talking about? That kind of tangent?


Fact is - you have failed to back up your statements over the last couple of pages, and are simply attempting to deflect attention from your inability to support your own statements.WHAT do you want me to back up?

[David88vert]

WHAT opinion? I haven't posted an opinion at all. Lol. Please quote exactly what I said that you believe is my opinion.

What claim are you talking about?

What. Is. Your. Point?

Obviously not since you're arguing that basic economic concepts somehow don't exist. You're keeping an eye on the way YOU want the discussion to go: off on a straw man. And when you say tangents, do you mean like starting a discussion about imposing taxes on guns, that no one is talking about? That kind of tangent?

WHAT do you want me to back up?

You made the claim of policies creating limitations on "highly capable cars" while we were discussing governmental control. After I showed you that your statement were clearly incorrect, you continued to try to make those claims. Where is the proof? Show us the federal policy documentation.

You are the one who ignored the most basic economic reality of supply and demand and tried to claim that performance vehicles (Corvettes and "north", remember?) were price controlled by these policies. I want to see these federal restrictions on price. Show them to us.


Finally, you stated that the gun control restrictions started between 1776 and now. I simply showed you when. I didn't even charge you tuition. Of course, you won't be getting any credit either. You didn't answer the questions that I posed though. In regards to the actual results, did that proactive, financially restrictive law accomplish its goal of reducing or eliminating gun violence? Here's a hint - the answer has two letters.

[.blank cd]

You made the claim of policies creating limitations on "highly capable cars" while we were discussing governmental control. After I showed you that your statement were clearly incorrect, you continued to try to make those claims. Where is the proof? Show us the federal policy documentation.Lets be clear here, I made an analogy. An analogy that was prompted by sinfix. You didn't show me I was incorrect incorrect at all. You read too deep into the analogy.


You are the one who ignored the most basic economic reality of supply and demand and tried to claim that performance vehicles (Corvettes and "north", remember?) were price controlled by these policies. I want to see these federal restrictions on price. Show them to us.I never claimed there was a federal restriction on performance vehicles with regards to price. Did you read too much into the analogy? What about it confused you?



Finally, you stated that the gun control restrictions started between 1776 and now. I simply showed you when. I didn't even charge you tuition. Of course, you won't be getting any credit either. You didn't answer the questions that I posed though. In regards to the actual results, did that proactive, financially restrictive law accomplish its goal of reducing or eliminating gun violence? Here's a hint - the answer has two letters.Is this about the tangent you went off on, about imposing taxes no one was proposing or even discussing?

[David88vert]

...What are some proactive methods we use to stop people from committing crimes in very capable cars?


....what methods, policy or otherwise, do we use to limit people purchasing and using high powered cars?


...Higher powered cars are limited in some fashion..


There are government policies...
...All the cars I listed are "limited" in some fashion, government policy or otherwise. What are those fashions?


They're very limited....
Think of any possible way, when I'm drawing up plans for a GTR, how I could keep it out of the hands of someone who isn't able to handle its capabilities.


...The question was what limits do we already have in place for these high powered cars to prevent speeding and accidents. Purchase price is the limitation. Insurance cost is the other, registration costs are another, limited production runs are another. These limitations, directly or indirectly keep people from breaking laws and injuring other people...


Purchase price is controlled by the law of supply and demand. The federal government does not say, "This car is too fast, we need to raise the price on it to slow people down." They don't regulate on perception that someone might drive beyond their capabilities either - if they did, all Honda Civics would be more expensive than Ferraris - all the kids try to drive them beyond their limits and crash.
ANY car that you buy from the dealership can break the speed limit - even a Jetta TDI. Almost every car that you can buy privately can break the speed limit as well, provided that they aren't half broken down. There are NO price controls on purchase price based upon the car's performance abilities alone - not one.

Registration costs are not involved with the federal government at all. They are local county costs, and have nothing to do with the performance capabilities of the car - simply based on the age and taxable value of the vehicle. They have no effect on controlling the driving habits of individuals, nor were they ever intended to.

Insurance costs are not related to regulation by the federal government based upon the capabilities of the car. The federal government does not even require you to have insurance on your car. Insurance is mandated in GA at a state level - and if you use your car on public roads. Track-only cars do not typically have insurance or registration at all, as it is not required. Insurance companies charge rates on what they perceive the risk is, not from any federal table of cost to performance capability.

Limited production runs? Really? Those are controlled by the manufacturer, and have nothing to do with any regulations. They are solely marketing methods to generate the most profit for the manufacturer. Did you even take Economics 101?

What you listed isn't even remotely related to government regulations and laws in keeping people from breaking laws....

Private property does not have to be inside your garage. It can be on any non-public road, field, farm, etc. Race cars, tractors, farm trucks, etc, are usually not registered or tagged, or driven on public roads - and you can speed as much as you like on private property.




Lets be clear here, I made an analogy. An analogy that was prompted by sinfix. You didn't show me I was incorrect incorrect at all. You read too deep into the analogy.

I never claimed there was a federal restriction on performance vehicles with regards to price. Did you read too much into the analogy? What about it confused you?

Re-read your statements. Everyone else has already seen your error.



The question was what limits do we already have in place for these high powered cars to prevent speeding and accidents. Purchase price is the limitation. Insurance cost is the other, registration costs are another, limited production runs are another. These limitations, directly or indirectly keep people from breaking laws and injuring other people.

And all guns should be treated the same way. It shouldn't be as easy as it is for a criminal to get one.



Is this about the tangent you went off on, about imposing taxes no one was proposing or even discussing?

Are you saying that you did not say the above?

[.blank cd]

I said every last bit of that. Which part of that did I say there is a federal regulation on performance cars? Can you quote that specific part please?

...or are you assuming?

No one has seen my error yet, particularly since I haven't made one, and you've yet to point that non existent error out. But I'll let you keep trying. Lol.

[David88vert]

I said every last bit of that. Which part of that did I say there is a federal regulation on performance cars? Can you quote that specific part please?

...or are you assuming?

No one has seen my error yet, particularly since I haven't made one, and you've yet to point that non existent error out. But I'll let you keep trying. Lol.

#4 and #6 were pretty clear.

The entire context of this entire thread has been federal legislation, has it not?
Are we supposed to believe that you are suddenly invoking state and county regulations on this federal restriction discussion?

[.blank cd]

#4 and #6 were pretty clear.Did you see the part that said "...or otherwise"? Key word "otherwise"?


The entire context of this entire thread has been federal legislation, has it not?
Are we supposed to believe that you are suddenly invoking state and county regulations on this federal restriction discussion?I made an analogy. An analogy prompted by Sinfix. I'm not invoking anything. I made an analogy using the auto industry. Are you still confused? The whole thread is built on an analogy by him. That is the context of the thread.

[Sinfix_15]

Do you think if AR15s were $500, would more or less people have access to them?

More people SHOULD have access to them................... the economy should not limit things only to the rich. An AR15 should be available to everyone who wishes to have one and can legally own one.

Guns should cost whatever the manufacturer thinks theyre worth and the government should have no say in it.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not seeing this connection between price limiting our ability to own excessive vehicles. The fastest and most dangerous vehicle on the road can be had for about $15000....

[.blank cd]

More people SHOULD have access to them................... the economy should not limit things only to the rich. An AR15 should be available to everyone who wishes to have one and can legally own one.

Guns should cost whatever the manufacturer thinks theyre worth and the government should have no say in it.

Why do you think more people should have access to these high powered rifles? Does the "more" include children and people who are unable to handle the extra capability mentally or physically?

[.blank cd]

I'm not seeing this connection between price limiting our ability to own excessive vehicles. The fastest and most dangerous vehicle on the road can be had for about $15000....

Don't look too deep into it. I made one analogy and you're introducing others. How many people you think have the disposable cash for a $15k bike(Since I'm guessing you're referring to liter+ bikes)

If the price of AR15s drops $1500 tomorrow, do you think demand for them would go up or down? What about if the price went up $1500?

[Sinfix_15]

Why do you think more people should have access to these high powered rifles? Does the "more" include children and people who are unable to handle the extra capability mentally or physically?

A child cant purchase any gun. Any use of a gun is under the supervision of the parent. I dont think you will ever accurately be able to identify mental illness to any degree of certainty.

Why should people have guns? You're asking the wrong question................. this is america, we dont ask why, we ask why not. People have the right to enjoy their lives how they see fit.

[Sinfix_15]

Don't look too deep into it. I made one analogy and you're introducing others. How many people you think have the disposable cash for a $15k bike(Since I'm guessing you're referring to liter+ bikes)

If the price of AR15s drops $1500 tomorrow, do you think demand for them would go up or down? What about if the price went up $1500?

They finance them to anyone............ a bike is one of the easiest things to buy...... easier than a car........

The economy will balance out, if AR15 jumped up $1500 tomorrow, people would stop buying them, when people stopped buying them, they would drop back down. Are you suggesting that the government should be able to keep the price high for the purpose of limiting access?

[.blank cd]

They finance them to anyone............ a bike is one of the easiest things to buy...... easier than a car...Not according to my loan officer at the bank. I tried that. Unless you're coming to the table with a significant DP and a stellar credit score.

[QuoteThe economy will balance out, if AR15 jumped up $1500 tomorrow, people would stop buying them, when people stopped buying them, they would drop back down. Are you suggesting that the government should be able to keep the price high for the purpose of limiting access?[/QUOTE]All I'm saying is that its possible to manipulate the demand like that with policy and without placing a direct tax on guns. Maybe not to a $1500 extent, but its possible.

[Sinfix_15]

Not according to my loan officer at the bank. I tried that. Unless you're coming to the table with a significant DP and a stellar credit score.

[QuoteThe economy will balance out, if AR15 jumped up $1500 tomorrow, people would stop buying them, when people stopped buying them, they would drop back down. Are you suggesting that the government should be able to keep the price high for the purpose of limiting access?All I'm saying is that its possible to manipulate the demand like that with policy and without placing a direct tax on guns. Maybe not to a $1500 extent, but its possible.[/QUOTE]

Why would you want to do something like that?

Is your goal for america to be softcore communist?

[Sinfix_15]

Would you feel the same way if the government priced other things out of the reach of common citizens? for the sole purpose of making them out of reach to common citizens

[Sinfix_15]

Careful when standing on the moral ground of the liberal left...... it's very thin ice.

Barack, Michelle, Biden All to Skip Thatcher Funeral to Push Gun Control (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/04/16/Obama-First-Lady-and-VP-Biden-Skip-Thatcher-Funeral-To-Push-Gun-Control)

[Sinfix_15]

accidental honesty on display


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pHj6KAlZK1E

[Sinfix_15]

America as it should be

Guns and Grub: Louisiana restaurant serves free fried chicken to concealed carry holders (http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/04/16/guns-and-grub-louisiana-restaurant-serves-free-fried-chicken-to-concealed-carry-holders/)

[Sinfix_15]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/758928848.jpg

[.blank cd]

Why would you want to do something like that?

Is your goal for america to be softcore communist?I haven't said if I wanted them to do it or not

This happens with a lot of other commodities as well. Not just guns.

[.blank cd]

Would you feel the same way if the government priced other things out of the reach of common citizens? for the sole purpose of making them out of reach to common citizensIm not suggesting the government is pricing anything. I'm saying that the government has ways of manipulating demand.

[David88vert]

Did you see the part that said "...or otherwise"? Key word "otherwise"?

I made an analogy. An analogy prompted by Sinfix. I'm not invoking anything. I made an analogy using the auto industry. Are you still confused? The whole thread is built on an analogy by him. That is the context of the thread.

The whole discussion has been about federal government gun control legislation concerning the banning of importation and manufacturing of assault style weapons. Explain how your analogy can still be an analogy to that subject, when you wish to remove all of those relevant details.

[Echonova]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/758928848.jpgYou would think the President could afford a Kindle.

[David88vert]

More people SHOULD have access to them................... the economy should not limit things only to the rich. An AR15 should be available to everyone who wishes to have one and can legally own one.

Guns should cost whatever the manufacturer thinks theyre worth and the government should have no say in it.

Everyone already has access to them, they just have to pay for them, just like a car, food, etc. The government is not raising the cost or limiting it - the free market handles the pricing.
An AR15 is already available to everyone who wishes to have one and can legally own one.
Guns already cost whatever the manufacturer thinks that they can get for them and the government not even attempt to have a say in it.

[David88vert]

Why do you think more people should have access to these high powered rifles? Does the "more" include children and people who are unable to handle the extra capability mentally or physically?

On this, blank, I agree with you. MORE people do not need to have access to them, as everyone except felons, mentally handicapped, and children, already have full access to them.

[David88vert]

Don't look too deep into it. I made one analogy and you're introducing others. How many people you think have the disposable cash for a $15k bike(Since I'm guessing you're referring to liter+ bikes)

If the price of AR15s drops $1500 tomorrow, do you think demand for them would go up or down? What about if the price went up $1500?

Lot of people have access to liter bikes - we have vehicle loans.
I do not think that gun specific loans sound like a good idea, although people already can get personal loans.

[.blank cd]

Everyone already has access to them, they just have to pay for them, just like a car, food, etc. The government is not raising the cost or limiting it - the free market handles the pricing. Yes. To a good extent.


Guns already cost whatever the manufacturer thinks that they can get for them and the government not even attempt to have a say in it....but the government has the ability to manipulate the supply and demand of guns, as with almost every commodity it has the power to regulate, as an externality of a certain policy, which can affect the price.

[David88vert]

Not according to my loan officer at the bank. I tried that. Unless you're coming to the table with a significant DP and a stellar credit score.


Try a CU, if you have a halfway decent credit score. I know plenty of guys that only have a job, that still got financed on a liter bike. Personally, I could get any bike I want, and fully finance 100% of it - just sign and ride.
It is smarter to just pay cash for a bike though. If you are waiting to just pay cash, then you are at least thinking things through correctly on that.

[David88vert]

I haven't said if I wanted them to do it or not

This happens with a lot of other commodities as well. Not just guns.

Well, do you? Take a stand. Right or wrong - its your right as an American.

[.blank cd]

On this, blank, I agree with you. MORE people do not need to have access to them, as everyone except felons, mentally handicapped, and children, already have full access to them.

Do felons not have access to these weapons?

If I'm a felon, is it possible for me to buy a gun from you?

Is it possible for me to buy a gun from a dealer?

[David88vert]

Im not suggesting the government is pricing anything. I'm saying that the government has ways of manipulating demand.

You don't believe that the government was behind 9/11 or the bombing in Boston, do you? If you are a conspiracy nut, this thread is over.

[David88vert]

Yes. To a good extent.

...but the government has the ability to manipulate the supply and demand of guns, as with almost every commodity it has the power to regulate, as an externality of a certain policy, which can affect the price.

Can you give an exact example of how the federal government is doing this with the price of guns or sports cars?

[.blank cd]

Well, do you? Take a stand. Right or wrong - its your right as an American.

I don't see the harm in reducing the demand for assault style guns outside of the military, especially if it only means filling out an extra sheet of paper or doing a more thorough background check.

[David88vert]

Do felons not have access to these weapons?

If I'm a felon, is it possible for me to buy a gun from you?

Is it possible for me to buy a gun from a dealer?

Felons shouldn't be able to get them, unless they have had their firearms right restored.
Can they get them? Sure. Anyone that wants to get something, can, if they desire to. It's already illegal for them to purchase one from either a dealer or private seller.
Do you believe that the felon might not know that it is illegal for him to purchase, yet the seller knows that it is illegal and still chooses to sell it to him? Is that why we should attempt to find a way to criminalize the seller?

[.blank cd]

I'm not a conspiracy nut. So no.


Can you give an exact example of how the federal government is doing this with the price of guns or sports cars?As a matter of fact, I can. There was an assault weapons ban in 1994, maybe you've heard of it. I was only a sperm cell in 94

And apparantly the same lady is attempting to pass a similar bill in 2013. Maybe you've heard of that one.

[David88vert]

I don't see the harm in reducing the demand for assault style guns outside of the military, especially if it only means filling out an extra sheet of paper or doing a more thorough background check.

Ok, fair enough, that is your position, and your right to have that opinion - that I can accept and respect. Thank you for just stating your opinion.

Now, I have a fair question on that opinion.
How do you propose that the government implement a background check system for private sales, and how do you keep that from turning into a national firearms registry?

[Echonova]

You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

[David88vert]

I'm not a conspiracy nut. So no.

As a matter of fact, I can. There was an assault weapons ban in 1994, maybe you've heard of it. I was only a sperm cell in 94

And apparantly the same lady is attempting to pass a similar bill in 2013. Maybe you've heard of that one.

If we are to go on history, that previous assault weapons ban did not make any meaningful impact on crime, nor did it keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals. So what would be different this time around?

[.blank cd]

Felons shouldn't be able to get them, unless they have had their firearms right restored.
Can they get them? Sure. Anyone that wants to get something, can, if they desire to. It's already illegal for them to purchase one from either a dealer or private seller.
Do you believe that the felon might not know that it is illegal for him to purchase, yet the seller knows that it is illegal and still chooses to sell it to him? Is that why we should attempt to find a way to criminalize the seller?

A felon could not realize he's not allowed to purchase a gun. It's possible. But then its also possible he could withhold that information, is it not?

[David88vert]

You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

But how do you use the three shells?

[Echonova]

A felon could not realize he's not allowed to purchase a gun. It's possible. But then its also possible he could withhold that information, is it not?Can someone convicted of drunk driving and had their license revoked, still get behind the wheel of a car?


We should pass a law to prevent that.

[.blank cd]

Ok, fair enough, that is your position, and your right to have that opinion - that I can accept and respect. Thank you for just stating your opinion.

Now, I have a fair question on that opinion.
How do you propose that the government implement a background check system for private sales, and how do you keep that from turning into a national firearms registry?

I'm not against a registry.

[.blank cd]

If we are to go on history, that previous assault weapons ban did not make any meaningful impact on crime, nor did it keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals. So what would be different this time around?

Did it have an impact on the demand for assault weapons?

[Echonova]

But how do you use the three shells?Two are used like chopsticks to "remove" waste and the third is used to "scrape" away the rest.


No mention is made on how they are sanitized.

[David88vert]

A felon could not realize he's not allowed to purchase a gun. It's possible. But then its also possible he could withhold that information, is it not?

A felon is notified multiple times when he is being placed on probation or parole that he no longer is allowed to purchase, own, or possess a firearm. They give a felon a clear message in abundance.
Also, ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse.

If the felon withholds the information, then the felon has committed the crime, not the seller. The felon should be prosecuted. The seller should not be prosecuted for something that he has no responsibility to know. That's common sense.

[.blank cd]

Can someone convicted of drunk driving and had their license revoked, still get behind the wheel of a car?


We should pass a law to prevent that.

Got any ideas?

[David88vert]

I'm not against a registry.

So, you think that giving the federal government a national registry of all firearms does not have significant potential to give the federal government an incentive to abuse their power in the future? I'm glad you weren't one of our founding fathers - you do not appear to have the foresight that they did.

[.blank cd]

A felon is notified multiple times when he is being placed on probation or parole that he no longer is allowed to purchase, own, or possess a firearm. They give a felon a clear message in abundance.
Also, ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse.

If the felon withholds the information, then the felon has committed the crime, not the seller. The felon should be prosecuted. The seller should not be prosecuted for something that he has no responsibility to know. That's common sense.

So if the felon withholds that information to buy a gun, and the moment the exchange happens, it's a crime on the buyer, how is the arrest made? How is it prosecuted?

[David88vert]

Did it have an impact on the demand for assault weapons?

Only on law abiding citizens. Is that who we need to target? Are those people a threat? If so, who are they a threat to?

[Echonova]

Got any ideas?We could install breathalyzers in everyone's car regardless of whether they've ever drank a drop in their life or not.


It's for the greater good.

[David88vert]

Two are used like chopsticks to "remove" waste and the third is used to "scrape" away the rest.


No mention is made on how they are sanitized.

What's scary is that you know how to use them....

blank, can we get the three shells banned now, as a proactive measure?

[David88vert]

Got any ideas?

BAN ALL CARS!!!!

[.blank cd]

So, you think that giving the federal government a national registry of all firearms does not have significant potential to give the federal government an incentive to abuse their power in the future? I'm glad you weren't one of our founding fathers - you do not appear to have the foresight that they did.

Or I have more insight, since I obviously live in a different time.

Just like I believe the government isn't coming for my registered Honda Civic, I'm pretty sure they're not coming for my Glock. There's no motive or incentive for them to come for either.

[David88vert]

So if the felon withholds that information to buy a gun, and the moment the exchange happens, it's a crime on the buyer, how is the arrest made? How is it prosecuted?

Whenever the felon is stopped and the officers find his weapons, or when someone knows that he has a weapon, and turns him in. It happens all the time.

Why should the seller be responsible for information withheld from him?

[David88vert]

We could install breathalyzers in everyone's car regardless of whether they've ever drank a drop in their life or not.


It's for the greater good.

blank is probably for that. He doesn't seem to think freedom is very important.

[.blank cd]

Only on law abiding citizens. Is that who we need to target? Are those people a threat? If so, who are they a threat to?

Were these law abiding citizens suddenly unable to buy assault rifles? Or did they just not want the hassle of going through another background check and filling out another piece of paper?

[Echonova]

BAN ALL CARS!!!!No need. All that's required is some form of a BAC test along with a retinal scan of the driver (to determine the sober person isn't just blowing into the machine) uploaded via nationwide public WiFi (of course this will need funding) to a government database so they can approve the request for the car to start.


Nobody is trying to take your right to drive a car away.

[David88vert]

Or I have more insight, since I obviously live in a different time.

Just like I believe the government isn't coming for my registered Honda Civic, I'm pretty sure they're not coming for my Glock. There's no motive or incentive for them to come for either.

You are not more intelligent that the founding fathers. Not even remotely. You are arrogant with absolutely no reason to be.

You have a Glock? We're going to need you to turn that in. They are used in far more murders than assault weapons.

[Sinfix_15]

Everyone already has access to them, they just have to pay for them, just like a car, food, etc. The government is not raising the cost or limiting it - the free market handles the pricing.
An AR15 is already available to everyone who wishes to have one and can legally own one.
Guns already cost whatever the manufacturer thinks that they can get for them and the government not even attempt to have a say in it.

Ya, i want it to stay that it way. It sounded like Blank was suggesting a change to that.

[David88vert]

Were these law abiding citizens suddenly unable to buy assault rifles? Or did they just not want the hassle of going through another background check and filling out another piece of paper?

They were unable to buy them once their local store ran out. Of course, the criminals had no problem obtaining them on the black market.

[.blank cd]

Whenever the felon is stopped and the officers find his weapons, or when someone knows that he has a weapon, and turns him in. It happens all the time.

Why should the seller be responsible for information withheld from him?

So it takes a traffic stop, or someone to turn me in to get arrested for buying a gun illegally? I've been stopped one time in the past year, and that time the cop didnt even ask me if I had any weapons.

So if I buy a gun from you as a felon and commit that crime, then take that gun home, don't get stopped, and tuck it under my bed, how does the arrest happen in this case?

[.blank cd]

They were unable to buy them once their local store ran out. Of course, the criminals had no problem obtaining them on the black market.

So they were able to buy them until the supply was too low?

[David88vert]

So it takes a traffic stop, or someone to turn me in to get arrested for buying a gun illegally? I've been stopped one time in the past year, and that time the cop didnt even ask me if I had any weapons.

So if I buy a gun from you as a felon and commit that crime, then take that gun home, don't get stopped, and tuck it under my bed, how does the arrest happen in this case?

If it stays under your bed, perhaps there will never be an arrest. In that case, you are not a threat to anyone.
If it comes out from under your bed, and you decide to use it illegally, I hope that a law abiding citizen or officer has their weapon and stops you quickly. I certainly wouldn't want their firearm of choice to be removed from their use, and them be unable to resist.

[Sinfix_15]

So it takes a traffic stop, or someone to turn me in to get arrested for buying a gun illegally? I've been stopped one time in the past year, and that time the cop didnt even ask me if I had any weapons.

So if I buy a gun from you as a felon and commit that crime, then take that gun home, don't get stopped, and tuck it under my bed, how does the arrest happen in this case?

Not my problem, im not a cop. Innocent until proven guilty, when you find guilty parties.... deal with them accordingly. You dont impose punishment on everyone hoping that some of it reaches criminals.

[Sinfix_15]

So they were able to buy them until the supply was too low?

You chasing a point that doesnt even matter.........................

[David88vert]

So they were able to buy them until the supply was too low?

In some places, people snatched them up quickly prior to the ban being implemented, leaving some stores out of stock even before the ban. That only limited legal buyers from access though. Is that who you want to have be without assault weapons, and leave them in the hands of criminals?

Got to go for now.

[.blank cd]

So what you both are getting at, is that a background check for a private sale is a punishment for the seller, regardless if its the responsibility of the buyer to obtain it?

[Echonova]

So what you both are getting at, is that a background check for a private sale is a punishment for the seller, regardless if its the responsibility of the buyer to obtain it?Wut?

[Sinfix_15]

So what you both are getting at, is that a background check for a private sale is a punishment for the seller, regardless if its the responsibility of the buyer to obtain it?

I probably wouldnt call it punishment..... its a government overreach. It serves little to no purpose and has misguided intent. Background checks will have no effect on criminals. We have car registration and that doesnt stop criminals from stealing and transporting cars. The left wants a gun free america, this is just one step towards that goal. Theyre dishonest about their agenda and it's insulting to anyone with half a brain to watch them parade around with a pocket full of caskets on their campaign trail.

[David88vert]

So what you both are getting at, is that a background check for a private sale is a punishment for the seller, regardless if its the responsibility of the buyer to obtain it?

Let me put it to you this way.

If you sell a car to someone that does not have a drivers license, and they pull out into the road, floor it, and hit and kill someone, should you be held liable for their actions, since you did not verify that they were allowed to take the car into the road?

Here's a hint - our legal system says that you are not liable for their actions.

[.blank cd]

I probably wouldnt call it punishment..... its a government overreach. It serves little to no purpose and has misguided intent. Background checks will have no effect on criminals.

Why do you believe it has misguided intent? The intent is to stop the felon from defrauding a legitimate seller to take possession of a weapon before it happens. Would such a system not prevent this? I'm not asking if they're gonna find other methods of obtaining a weapon.

Would a required background check for private sales prevent me, a felon, from withholding information from you to buy a gun from you, the non-felon seller, Yes or no?

[.blank cd]

Let me put it to you this way.

If you sell a car to someone that does not have a drivers license, and they pull out into the road, floor it, and hit and kill someone, should you be held liable for their actions, since you did not verify that they were allowed to take the car into the road?

Here's a hint - our legal system says that you are not liable for their actions.

In keeping your analogy consistent, are felons allowed to have cars? And is it legal to sell a gun to someone without a concealed carry permit? This information is important, as I want to answer your question as accurate as possible.

[David88vert]

Why do you believe it has misguided intent? The intent is to stop the felon from defrauding a legitimate seller to take possession of a weapon before it happens. Would such a system not prevent this? I'm not asking if they're gonna find other methods of obtaining a weapon.

Would a required background check for private sales prevent me, a felon, from withholding information from you to buy a gun from you, the non-felon seller, Yes or no?

Wait a minute. You just talked about having a Glock, and now you say that you are a felon? I think that we need to report you ASAP to the authorities.

J/K

Would you propose that sellers that do not obtain a background check prior to selling a firearm in a private transaction be criminalized, and be legally punishable?

[David88vert]

In keeping your analogy consistent, are felons allowed to have cars? And is it legal to sell a gun to someone without a concealed carry permit? This information is important, as I want to answer your question as accurate as possible.

I didn't ask the other questions. Just answer what I asked. One step at a time. We are simply asking if you do not check their license, should you be responsible for the buyers criminal behavior.

[Sinfix_15]

Why do you believe it has misguided intent? The intent is to stop the felon from defrauding a legitimate seller to take possession of a weapon before it happens. Would such a system not prevent this? I'm not asking if they're gonna find other methods of obtaining a weapon.

Would a required background check for private sales prevent me, a felon, from withholding information from you to buy a gun from you, the non-felon seller, Yes or no?

The intent is to chip away at guns rights via any measure deemed publicly acceptable.

If they truly cared about both gun rights and safety, they would find a way to accommodate both. Theyre not..... theyre seeking to remove gun rights under the guise of safety.

Make felons register themselves as felons. What a law abiding citizen does or owns is none of your business. List "prohibited from firearms" on a person's drivers license, then encourage gun owners to use that information when determining a sell. The left already says "90% of gun owners support X__________", then they clearly think that 90% of gun owners are responsible.... give us the tools to make responsible decisions regarding gun sales.

I will not register my guns, i will not observe any law prohibiting guns

[Sinfix_15]

This government cant be trusted...... so forgive me im "up in arms" when they seek to take my "anti tyranny kit" away.

Congress, Obama Plan Amnesty in Secret (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/16/Congress-Obama-Plan-Amnesty-in-Secret?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[.blank cd]

I didn't ask the other questions. Just answer what I asked. One step at a time. We are simply asking if you do not check their license, should you be responsible for the buyers criminal behavior.

Well, then its a false analogy, and a false choice has been presented.

If, however, its illegal for a felon to own a car, and I sell the felon that car and he goes and kills someone with it, then yes, I should be legally culpable.

[Sinfix_15]

Well, then its a false analogy, and a false choice has been presented.

If, however, its illegal for a felon to own a car, and I sell the felon that car and he goes and kills someone with it, then yes, I should be legally culpable.

I would be ok with that................

after the fact.

[.blank cd]

This government cant be trusted...... so forgive me im "up in arms" when they seek to take my "anti tyranny kit" away.

What part of history makes you think they are taking away your right to own a gun? Which part of the bill makes you believe they're trying to take away your right to own a gun?

[David88vert]

Well, then its a false analogy, and a false choice has been presented.

If, however, its illegal for a felon to own a car, and I sell the felon that car and he goes and kills someone with it, then yes, I should be legally culpable.

A person without a license that pulls straight out into the road from your sale and kills someone is no different than a felon. A simple drivers license check would be just like a background check, right? Just a little yes or no that they have a valid drivers license. All you have to do is run their license, or have an officer do it for you. Or you could just meet at the DMV, wait 8 hours, and finally get an approval or rejection. Doesn't that sound reasonable? After all, you could be keeping someone who is not licensed to drive from buying a car that could be used to kill people.

It's a much more accurate analogy than your "highly capable cars are limited by government policies" analogy.

[David88vert]

What part of history makes you think they are taking away your right to own a gun? Which part of the bill makes you believe they're trying to take away your right to own a gun?

This is probably your best argument.

Here's something to consider though:
If you think that the government’s promise of a “safer environment” is what is actually delivered, consider how the people of Great Britain relinquished their right to bear arms because their government promised that it would make everyone safer. It started with licenses and registration, and step-by-step more restrictions came into play. As a result, today the only people in Great Britain who possess guns are the bad guys; the law-abiding citizens must now live without the ability to respond to criminals with firearms.

[.blank cd]

A person without a license that pulls straight out into the road from your sale and kills someone is no different than a felon. A simple drivers license check would be just like a background check, right? Just a little yes or no that they have a valid drivers license. All you have to do is run their license, or have an officer do it for you. Or you could just meet at the DMV, wait 8 hours, and finally get an approval or rejection. Doesn't that sound reasonable? After all, you could be keeping someone who is not licensed to drive from buying a car that could be used to kill people.

It's a much more accurate analogy than your "highly capable cars are limited by government policies" analogy.

No it's not. If I've been convicted of a separate felony, Ive lost the right to own a gun, I can still own a car. The license is analogous to a carry permit. Lets try to keep the analogies consistent.

[David88vert]

No it's not. If I've been convicted of a separate felony, Ive lost the right to own a gun, I can still own a car. The license is analogous to a carry permit. Lets try to keep the analogies consistent.

You're stretching to try to avoid answering the question. Everyone in this thread knows the real answer. You're the only one in denial.

[.blank cd]

You're stretching to try to avoid answering the question. Everyone in this thread knows the real answer. You're the only one in denial.

Yes. I am the only one in this thread who understands what a false analogy is. I didnt avoid your question, I answered it after I filled in the details you conveniently left out. And, coincidentally, Im also the only one in the thread who isn't putting fourth the right-wing narrative. Hmm...

Ok. So in your new analogy, the driving license is no longer analogous to a carry permit, but in your old analogy it was. Just not sure why it changes. Maybe to fit your narrative. I'm not sure. Just want to be clear.

[David88vert]

Yes. I am the only one in this thread who understands what a false analogy is. I didnt avoid your question, I answered it after I filled in the details you conveniently left out. And, coincidentally, Im also the only one in the thread who isn't putting fourth the right-wing narrative. Hmm...

Ok. So in your new analogy, the driving license is no longer analogous to a carry permit, but in your old analogy it was. Just not sure why it changes. Maybe to fit your narrative. I'm not sure. Just want to be clear.

You still don't want to answer a simple question of if you could be held responsible for another's actions. That's really the core of the question. The laws and courts have already addressed it, your opinion doesn't really matter, as we all know the truth. Do you think that the seller should be criminalized or punished for a buyer's actions? Obviously, you favor that, based upon your previous comments.

I'm not putting forth right-wing or left-wing narrative. I simply state the facts and statistics, and utilize logic and reason with them. If you think that means it's right wing, then perhaps you should examine what the left-wing is promoting.

[.blank cd]

You still don't want to answer a simple question of if you could be held responsible for another's actions. That's really the core of the question. The laws and courts have already addressed it, your opinion doesn't really matter, as we all know the truth.I know my opinion doesn't matter, that's why I haven't offered it in this case.


Do you think that the seller should be criminalized or punished for a buyer's actions?No. I don't believe a seller should be punished for a buyers actions at all.

[.blank cd]

So why do you believe a background check is a punishment for the seller, if the buyer is required to obtain it?

[Echonova]

QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!! I QUESTION ALL OF IT!!!!!!!

[Echonova]

Sorry.



I reverted to a 3rd grade level of rebuttal of questioning, which apparently that's all blank can respond to.

[David88vert]

So why do you believe a background check is a punishment for the seller, if the buyer is required to obtain it?

So, we are to assume that the seller cannot be charged with any crime then, whether or not he actually sees the results of a background check or not?
Its completely on the buyer to get the background check?
That's no different then what we have now. Its all honor system.

[.blank cd]

Its completely on the buyer to get the background check?
That's no different then what we have now. Its all honor system.
Correct. We have an honor system in place........for felons.

Someone, somewhere in this thread said something to the effect of "criminals don't follow laws"

...but then we should expect them to follow the honor system?

[David88vert]

Correct. We have an honor system in place........for felons.

Someone, somewhere in this thread said something to the effect of "criminals don't follow laws"

...but then we should expect them to follow the honor system?

Ok, so your new background checks would not involve the seller at all then.
So, how does this change anything? How is it proactive? How would it prevent felons from purchasing firearms?

Are you for or against the Manchin-Toomey language, which would have seller and buyer go to an existing FFL dealer without compensation for the FFL dealers time and effort?
Are you for or against Senator Coburn's proposed amendment to background checks which would prevent the seller from being criminalized in any way?
It sounds like you might lean toward Coburn's proposal, which is a Republican proposal.

[.blank cd]

Ok, so your new background checks would not involve the seller at all then.
So, how does this change anything? How is it proactive? How would it prevent felons from purchasing firearms?What am I missing here?

If I were required by law to provide a background check to complete a private sale of a gun between me and you, and I was not able to provide a positive background check by being a felon, would I be able to complete the sale and take possession of that gun? Yes or no?

[.blank cd]

Are you for or against the Manchin-Toomey language, which would have seller and buyer go to an existing FFL dealer without compensation for the FFL dealers time and effort?
Are you for or against Senator Coburn's proposed amendment to background checks which would prevent the seller from being criminalized in any way?
It sounds like you might lean toward Coburn's proposal, which is a Republican proposal.The method doesn't matter. Lol

[David88vert]

What am I missing here?

If I were required by law to provide a background check to complete a private sale of a gun between me and you, and I was not able to provide a positive background check by being a felon, would I be able to complete the sale and take possession of that gun? Yes or no?


Who is running the background check? What legal responsibility is being placed upon the seller to verify that the background check is accurate, if the buyer is providing the documentation? Is the seller expected to perform the background check on their own? There are variables that make all the difference in the world legally.

[David88vert]

The method doesn't matter. Lol

Your statement shows that you have no clue what is being proposed in the current legislation that is being discussed. They are two vastly different scenarios, with serious legal repercussions.
How can anyone take you seriously, if you don't even know the basics?

Read and learn the summary at least, then come back with an answer. Manchin-Toomey Compromise On Gun Bill May Be Altered To Lure Rural Lawmakers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/manchin-toomey-compromise_n_3088957.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FPolitics+(Politics+on+Th e+Huffington+Post))

Here's the Toomey output: http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

Here's the initial Coburn response to Manchin-Toomey - his verbiage of an amendment might be out this week: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/tom-coburn-gun-background-checks_n_3056893.html

I used HuffPost so that you wouldn't claim right wing bias.

[.blank cd]

Your statement shows that you have no clue what is being proposed in the current legislation that is being discussed. They are two vastly different scenarios, with serious legal repercussions.
How can anyone take you seriously, if you don't even know the basics?

Read and learn the summary at least, then come back with an answer. Manchin-Toomey Compromise On Gun Bill May Be Altered To Lure Rural Lawmakers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/manchin-toomey-compromise_n_3088957.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FPolitics+(Politics+on+Th e+Huffington+Post))

Here's the Toomey output: http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

Here's the initial Coburn report - his verbiage of an amendment might be out this week: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/tom-coburn-gun-background-checks_n_3056893.html

Because I didnt read those at all, nor would I need to to get the point across

[David88vert]

Because I didnt read those at all, nor would I need to to get the point across

Oh, so you magically know what is being discussed in them?

I am laughing AT you, not with you.

[.blank cd]

Who is running the background check?Similar to whoever runs background checks for dealers. However you want to build that system doesnt matter, roll it into the carry permit and verify that, whatever.


What legal responsibility is being placed upon the seller to verify that the background check is accurateUse a state letterhead, watermarked piece of paper, roll it into the carry permit check and verify the permit, and require an up-to-date check every year or so, whatever, that would probably be the easiest way to avoid a registry. Keep the check with the bill of sale, or keep a record with the state that a bg check with the purpose of obtaining a gun was made on such and such date. Then, AFTER something like that is in place, ONLY WHEN A SELLER KNOWINGLY SELLS A GUN TO A FELON, would there be a punishment. If both individuals follow the law, there would be no punishment.


Is the seller expected to perform the background check on their own?If you want it that way you can. All I said was leave it up to the buyer.

If this is going to turn into a registry conversation, I'm not against a registry. If I should be, and the only reason is that they use it for the purpose of confiscating guns from people who are legitimately allowed to have them, I'm gonna need evidence of this happening in a first world, federal republic superpower, with an equally intricate and advanced system of checks and balances.

[.blank cd]

Oh, so you magically know what is being discussed in them?

I am laughing AT you, not with you.

I don't think I said I knew what was being discussed in the article. Particularly because I said I didn't read them. If you believe I said I did, quote me and I'll clarify what you might have misunderstood.

You're only laughing at yourself.

[David88vert]

Similar to whoever runs background checks for dealers. However you want to build that system doesnt matter, roll it into the carry permit and verify that, whatever.

Use a state letterhead, watermarked piece of paper, roll it into the carry permit check and verify the permit, and require an up-to-date check every year or so, whatever, that would probably be the easiest way to avoid a registry. Keep the check with the bill of sale, or keep a record with the state that a bg check with the purpose of obtaining a gun was made on such and such date. Then, AFTER something like that is in place, ONLY WHEN A SELLER KNOWINGLY SELLS A GUN TO A FELON, would there be a punishment. If both individuals follow the law, there would be no punishment.

If you want it that way you can. All I said was leave it up to the buyer.

If this is going to turn into a registry conversation, I'm not against a registry. If I should be, and the only reason is that they use it for the purpose of confiscating guns from people who are legitimately allowed to have them, I'm gonna need evidence of this happening in a first world, federal republic superpower, with an equally intricate and advanced system of checks and balances.

Having the seller keep a copy of each background check is not realistic. Fires, floods, etc, would cause more issues in the long term. You would need the background check system to keep a history of checks performed to have evidence that someone did not perform a background check. Furthermore, you are suggesting a vast expansion of laws to make all firearms buyers get a carry permit, essentially creating a national registry of permit holders. That does not follow the spirit of the law in the Second Amendment. Your lack of regard for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be frowned upon by our founding fathers.

The only possible current background check proposal is that buyer would be responsible to bring a letter of state approval to show the seller. That is similar to the proposal by Senator Coburn.
This would not criminalize the seller for not checking it, but would not keep a felon from getting a firearm. He would simply keep trying sellers until he found one that didn't ask him for the approval letter. This is not a real solution either, and none of these proposals would have prevented Aurora or Newtown, even though the President used references to Newtown repeatedly in discussion about current gun legislation just yesterday. Obama: "Unimaginable" That Congress Would "Defy" Americans And Not Pass Gun Control | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/16/obama_unimaginable_that_congress_would_defy_americ ans_and_not_pass_gun_control.html)
How is something proactive if it does not generated the desired and planned results?

[David88vert]

I don't think I said I knew what was being discussed in the article. Particularly because I said I didn't read them. If you believe I said I did, quote me and I'll clarify what you might have misunderstood.

You're only laughing at yourself.

I laughing at you because you think you actually know what you are talking about, when you have made it clear that you do not.

[David88vert]

If this is going to turn into a registry conversation, I'm not against a registry. If I should be, and the only reason is that they use it for the purpose of confiscating guns from people who are legitimately allowed to have them, I'm gonna need evidence of this happening in a first world, federal republic superpower, with an equally intricate and advanced system of checks and balances.

Now, I'm going to give you a little history here. This one should be broken out into its own point.

In the UK, they allowed guns up until 1998, when they banned them. The final trigger for banning was a school massacre. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Restrictive gun laws have been around for almost 100 years in England, and getting a permit requires proving to police that you have a “good reason” for needing a gun. Self-defense is not considered to be a "good reason" in England. How is that proactive legislation working out for them in that first world country?

Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was relatively small, with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%. Do those restrictive policies appear to be paying off?

Does this seem like something we should copy?

[.blank cd]

Having the seller keep a copy of each background check is not realistic. Fires, floods, etc, would cause more issues in the long term.You are indeed capable of critical thought. Just have have to ask the right questions


You would need the background check system to keep a history of checks performed to have evidence that someone did not perform a background check.Fine


Furthermore, you are suggesting a vast expansion of laws to make all firearms buyers get a carry permit, essentially creating a national registry of permit holders. That does not follow the spirit of the law in the Second Amendment. Your lack of regard for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be frowned upon by our founding fathers.Your interpretation of the constitution, and your analysis of my lack of regard of it, I suppose, is a matter of opinion.


The only possible current background check proposal is that buyer would be responsible to bring a letter of state approval to show the seller. That is similar to the proposal by Senator Coburn.
This would not criminalize the seller for not checking it, but would not keep a felon from getting a firearm. This is the answer I was looking for, and that I knew you understood.


He would simply keep trying sellers until he found one that didn't ask him for the approval letter.So, in this case, after this law would pass, and the seller sells to a felon, and the buyer buys without a check, are both of them breaking the law? If, in breaking the law, the buyer blows someone's head off with it, are they both responsible?


...and none of these proposals would have prevented Aurora or Newtown, even though the President used references to Newtown repeatedly in discussion about current gun legislation just yesterday. Obama: "Unimaginable" That Congress Would "Defy" Americans And Not Pass Gun Control | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/16/obama_unimaginable_that_congress_would_defy_americ ans_and_not_pass_gun_control.html)
How is something proactive if it does not generated the desired and planned results?We have to stop looking at it like everything would prevent Newtown. If I wanted to prevent another Newtown, I could close down every elementary school. Not much could feasibly be done to prevent a Newtown.

Newtown, Aurora were used, however maliciously you may or may not believe, as a prompt to discuss steps we can take as a nation to reduce access of guns only to the people that can't, or shouldn't have them already. No one can argue with that. No one is arguing with that. That's all I'm going to take that as. I'm not going to attribute the use of Newtown as malice toward legitimate gun owners, because that is not its intent at all.

If, in these steps, a similar tragedy is prevented, or slowed down, or whatever, then we've got a bonus.

[David88vert]

You are indeed capable of critical thought. Just have have to ask the right questions

Fine

Your interpretation of the constitution, and your analysis of my lack of regard of it, I suppose, is a matter of opinion.

This is the answer I was looking for, and that I knew you understood.

So, in this case, after this law would pass, and the seller sells to a felon, and the buyer buys without a check, are both of them breaking the law? If, in breaking the law, the buyer blows someone's head off with it, are they both responsible?

We have to stop looking at it like everything would prevent Newtown. If I wanted to prevent another Newtown, I could close down every elementary school. Not much could feasibly be done to prevent a Newtown.

Newtown, Aurora were used, however maliciously you may or may not believe, as a prompt to discuss steps we can take as a nation to reduce access of guns only to the people that can't, or shouldn't have them already. No one can argue with that. No one is arguing with that. That's all I'm going to take that as. I'm not going to attribute the use of Newtown as malice toward legitimate gun owners, because that is not its intent at all.

If, in these steps, a similar tragedy is prevented, or slowed down, or whatever, then we've got a bonus.

Based upon your answers, it appears that you would favor the amendment being proposed by Senator Coburn, and as you have stated, with a national firearm registry attached. The registry and the criminalization of sellers are the points of contention. I am completely opposed to those two items. I don't mind the background checks themselves, but as they have been stated to this point, they have no reasonable means to reduce criminal violence that utilized firearms, thus it is poor legislation, and better avenues of preventions should be explored.

Since Newtown and Aurora are not related to the current legislation, perhaps the Administration should not keep promoting its marketing campaign with them as the focal points.

[.blank cd]

Now, I'm going to give you a little history here. This one should be broken out into its own point.

In the UK, they allowed guns up until 1998, when they banned them. The final trigger for banning was a school massacre. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Restrictive gun laws have been around for almost 100 years in England, and getting a permit requires proving to police that you have a “good reason” for needing a gun. Self-defense is not considered to be a "good reason" in England. How is that proactive legislation working out for them in that first world country?What other factors do you think play a role in the recent arming of police, and for the violence in the UK?
Gun culture?
Culture in general?
Population density?

What works for them, might not work for us....


Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was relatively small, with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%. Do those restrictive policies appear to be paying off?Is it paying off? Is the firearms homicide rate declining? When you say "banned", do you mean your definition of banned, or just put on a list so that an extra step or two is required to obtain one?

Would a voluntary buyback work here in the states? Who knows. Who does a buyback target? Anyone who feels they don't need a gun to ensure their safety. Anyone who values money over guns. You know who a voluntary buyback wouldn't affect? A legal gun owning citizen who wants to keep his gun. But keep in mind, money is a major motivator today.

Is it something we should mimic? There are different factors to consider, so what works for them, may or may not work for us.

[.blank cd]

The registry and the criminalization of sellers are the points of contention. I am completely opposed to those two items.
You call it a criminalization of a seller, I call it a knowingly illegal sale of a firearm to a felon

[David88vert]

What other factors do you think play a role in the recent arming of police, and for the violence in the UK?
Gun culture?
Culture in general?
Population density?

What works for them, might not work for us....

Is it paying off? Is the firearms homicide rate declining? When you say "banned", do you mean your definition of banned, or just put on a list so that an extra step or two is required to obtain one?

Would a voluntary buyback work here in the states? Who knows. Who does a buyback target? Anyone who feels they don't need a gun to ensure their safety. Anyone who values money over guns. You know who a voluntary buyback wouldn't affect? A legal gun owning citizen who wants to keep his gun. But keep in mind, money is a major motivator today.

Is it something we should mimic? There are different factors to consider, so what works for them, may or may not work for us.

The London terrorist attacks do not account for the doubling of criminal violence involving handgun usage. You cannot spin that to rationalize the UK ban.
The UK has not had a strong gun culture in the past, and firearms restrictions were already in place, with fairly low crime statistics with firearms. 2 individual massacres prompted the 1997 restrictions and the 1998 ban - you can read history about it.
You must not have been to the UK or London if you are trying to use population density. London alone has over 8 million people in it's area. From 2001-2009, it grew much faster than any other area in the UK, and it only added 430,000. It definitely did not double, like the amount of handguns used in violent crime. Focus on London - Population and Migration | London DataStore (http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/applications/focus-london-population-and-migration)

You asked for a first world country as an example, and the UK is a perfect example to review.

I gave you Australia as a backup. If you don't approve of Australia, there are others that you can review, such as Germany. There, for people over 18, a license is not required to own a single shot percussion firearm developed before 1870, as well as all muzzle loaders with a flintlock or earlier design. That would satisfy the Second Amendment for you, I'm sure. You love playing technicalities, right?

How about Brazil - they have very strict gun control policies - as in good luck getting a legal permit for one. They have more homicides from violence with guns than the US - by about double. You probably consider them backwoods though.

[David88vert]

You call it a criminalization of a seller, I call it a knowingly illegal sale of a firearm to a felon

We already have laws concerning firearms transfers and purchases. How about enforcement of existing laws, rather than just writing more down?

The ATF catches people that try to sell to felons and prosecutes them.
USAO Press Release - | ATF (http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2010/11/111910-sea-olympia-man-arrested-for-selling-guns.html)

[Sinfix_15]

What other factors do you think play a role in the recent arming of police, and for the violence in the UK?
Gun culture?
Culture in general?
Population density?

What works for them, might not work for us....

Is it paying off? Is the firearms homicide rate declining? When you say "banned", do you mean your definition of banned, or just put on a list so that an extra step or two is required to obtain one?

Would a voluntary buyback work here in the states? Who knows. Who does a buyback target? Anyone who feels they don't need a gun to ensure their safety. Anyone who values money over guns. You know who a voluntary buyback wouldn't affect? A legal gun owning citizen who wants to keep his gun. But keep in mind, money is a major motivator today.

Is it something we should mimic? There are different factors to consider, so what works for them, may or may not work for us.

While i dont support even voluntary efforts to remove guns from society..... if someone wants to give up their gun, that's their business. So i am ok with buy back programs as long i have the ability to ignore them.

[.blank cd]

The London terrorist attacks do not account for the doubling of criminal violence involving handgun usage. You cannot spin that to rationalize the UK banDidnt try to spin rationalize a UK ban at all.


The UK has not had a strong gun culture in the past, and firearms restrictions were already in place, with fairly low crime statistics with firearms. 2 individual massacres prompted the 1997 restrictions and the 1998 ban - you can read history about it.
You must not have been to the UK or London if you are trying to use population density. London alone has over 8 million people in it's area. From 2001-2009, it grew much faster than any other area in the UK, and it only added 430,000. It definitely did not double, like the amount of handguns used in violent crime.Are you really trying to compare one city in the UK to the entire US? Come on. Don't be hard headed. You understand that the population density and area of the UK is different than here don't you? It most assuredly plays a role. Whether you want to believe it or not.


You asked for a first world country as an example, and the UK is a perfect example to review.

I gave you Australia as a backup. If you don't approve of Australia, there are others that you can review, such as Germany. There, for people over 18, a license is not required to own a single shot percussion firearm developed before 1870, as well as all muzzle loaders with a flintlock or earlier design. That would satisfy the Second Amendment for you, I'm sure. You love playing technicalities, right?

How about Brazil - they have very strict gun control policies - as in good luck getting a legal permit for one. They have more homicides from violence with guns than the US - by about double. You probably consider them backwoods though.

You know exactly what I asked for, and you've missed the mark. If I ask for an apple, don't give me a pomegranate. Or a ball of wax shaped in the form of an apple. Or a bowl of cereal.

[David88vert]

Didnt try to spin rationalize a UK ban at all.

Are you really trying to compare one city in the UK to the entire US? Come on. Don't be hard headed. You understand that the population density and area of the UK is different than here don't you? It most assuredly plays a role. Whether you want to believe it or not.



You know exactly what I asked for, and you've missed the mark. If I ask for an apple, don't give me a pomegranate. Or a ball of wax shaped in the form of an apple. Or a bowl of cereal.

Ok, since you are in denial - How about you show me a first world country with a similar population diversity and density, that had a similar amount of firearms per capita, that implemented a national registry for firearms or a full ban on them, and that say violent crime rates drop in half or more? I'm asking for an apple, not an orange. Show me where a gun ban or national registry has been a clear, overwhelming, and undeniable success.

[Sinfix_15]

[WATCH] War hero is arrested for “rudely displaying” rifle (http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/04/17/watch-war-hero-is-arrested-for-rudely-displaying-rifle/)

[Sinfix_15]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIKp3cvCAAEOHr7.jpg:large

[Sinfix_15]

4 people who will be looking for jobs soon.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/552868_10151352469866701_1733526112_n.png

[On_Her_Face]

Just ordered a new Daniel Defense V7 :goodjob:

[Elbow]

[WATCH] War hero is arrested for “rudely displaying” rifle (http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/04/17/watch-war-hero-is-arrested-for-rudely-displaying-rifle/)

Hmmm

[.blank cd]

Hmmm

There's probably more to the story than redalertpolitics is saying.

[Sinfix_15]

NRA Rifle Shirt Gets WV Middle Schooler Suspended, Arrested | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/daniel-zimmerman/220833/?fb_source=pubv1)

Liberals understand how important schools and education are. Theyre making sure to indoctrinate your kids early.

[Sinfix_15]

There's probably more to the story than redalertpolitics is saying.

quite the gross assumption for someone who pretends to indulge only in facts.

[Elbow]

NRA Rifle Shirt Gets WV Middle Schooler Suspended, Arrested | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/daniel-zimmerman/220833/?fb_source=pubv1)

Liberals understand how important schools and education are. Theyre making sure to indoctrinate your kids early.

Wear a gun related shirt to school and go home. Simple.

You're not suppose to wear alcohol branded clothing or anything either.


quite the gross assumption for someone who pretends to indulge only in facts.

Well aside from his beliefs, that situation is 50/50. I do think it's a little extreme to take a walk down the road with a rifle. If I was the cop I would have been worried approaching him. The arrest was uncalled for.

[.blank cd]

quite the gross assumption for someone who pretends to indulge only in facts.

I do indulge in facts. As a matter of fact, while tracing the real story down, the police officers said he refused to take his hand off the loaded gun. Something realclearpolitics conveniently left out of their story.

[.blank cd]

NRA Rifle Shirt Gets WV Middle Schooler Suspended, Arrested | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/daniel-zimmerman/220833/?fb_source=pubv1)

Liberals understand how important schools and education are. Theyre making sure to indoctrinate your kids early.

More biased drivel. If that was the shirt in question, I wouldn't want my son dressing like a trailer trash hillbilly to school either. And it sounds like he put up a fight with the administrators as well.

[Sinfix_15]

More biased drivel. If that was the shirt in question, I wouldn't want my son dressing like a trailer trash hillbilly to school either. And it sounds like he put up a fight with the administrators as well.

This is also part of the indoctrination process. "cool kids" like blankcd describe a shirt supporting your 2nd amendment rights, one of the rights this country was founded on as "dressing like a trailer trash hillbilly". Funny thing about it, he's a part of the most racially sensitive groups.

Yeah, he "put up a fight with administrators" about the same as Rosa Parks put up a fight with bus drivers.

[Sinfix_15]

Well aside from his beliefs, that situation is 50/50. I do think it's a little extreme to take a walk down the road with a rifle. If I was the cop I would have been worried approaching him. The arrest was uncalled for.

The media is to blame for false perception over reality. There's nothing unusual about someone walking down a remote road with a rifle. If he was wearing camo with a 12gauge on his back, nobody would have noticed. The type of rifle is what intimidates people. The perception of said rifle is far from the reality of it.

That guy getting stopped because of his appearance is about the same as a black guy getting stopped for wearing a backwards hat. Neither are in violation of any law, but the perception is misleading.

http://www.dreamstime.com/hunter-with-rifle-gun-thumb22547203.jpg

[.blank cd]

This is also part of the indoctrination process. "cool kids" like blankcd describe a shirt supporting your 2nd amendment rights, one of the rights this country was founded on as "dressing like a trailer trash hillbilly". Funny thing about it, he's a part of the most racially sensitive groups.

Yeah, he "put up a fight with administrators" about the same as Rosa Parks put up a fight with bus drivers.

I don't think that word "indoctrination" means what you think it means

And Im sure I don't have to explain to you the difference between this and civil disobedience.