You don't need any of that to buy a car.bells said:You mean cars that require people to pass a driving test, obtain a driver's license that has to be renewed constantly? Cars that require safety laws be complied with for their usage, that have strict laws about how they are used and by whom?
Reasonable person test? What? Are you suggesting that it is not foreseeable that a violent murderer could murder again, especially with a history of mental illness? The fault is not in the application of the laws. The fault lies with the laws themselves.It seems to me that that was a fault in applying the law, per the "reasonable person" test. It has nothing to do with our right to bear arms if we are not dangerous due to mental instability.
Did you miss that part of your own exposition?
If you commit a crime, you can still own guns, you just cannot possess them without a court ruling or in instances where no court ruling is necessary, if you have served your sentence, your rights to a gun can be restored automatically. You can leave your guns with a friend or family member. In short, Henderson vs United States (2015) found that a convicted felon can transfer possession of their firearms to a third party and the police cannot confiscate said weapons if the convicted felon elects a third party..You don't need any of that to buy a car.
As far as driving a car - the rules on firing guns are in many ways more, not less, restrictive. In many places it is illegal for the owner of a gun to discharge it except in self defense even on his own property.
Meanwhile, proposing that gun ownership be restricted on the same principles as car usage is restricted is a threat to many Americans, given the manner in which car usage has in fact been restricted by State agencies in the US. It's not a good line of argument.
Bells said:I'll ask the question simply.. Do you think it is acceptable for convicted murderers and rapists to be able to obtain their firearms again? Yes or no?
so your whining that a deadly weapon is treated like a deadly weapon instead of the toy you seem to think it is?You don't need any of that to buy a car.
As far as driving a car - the rules on firing guns are in many ways more, not less, restrictive. In many places it is illegal for the owner of a gun to discharge it except in self defense even on his own property.
Meanwhile, proposing that gun ownership be restricted on the same principles as car usage is restricted is a threat to many Americans, given the manner in which car usage has in fact been restricted by State agencies in the US. It's not a good line of argument.
That's not true: Your guns can be confiscated (and will be, in my State anyway) if you use them to commit a crime, or even have them in the vicinity. It happens all the time.bells said:If you commit a crime with your car, your car can be confiscated. In fact, they can confiscate anything that may be connected to a crime you or someone to you has committed. But not your guns.
Again.. Irony..
To repeat: it's a "both sides" problem; the only major political issue I know of actually held hostage by irrational ravings on "both sides", extremists threatening the bulk of the citizenry from "both sides".tiassa said:To them the "reasonable person" wants stalkers armed; when I hear of those cases, I raise a glass to Iceaura
You haven't read the case, have you?That's not true: Your guns can be confiscated (and will be, in my State anyway) if you use them to commit a crime, or even have them in the vicinity. It happens all the time.
Yes, because a car is like a gun..Again: the entire car business is a bad approach. It's a threat. In the US, the vulnerability of people to State coercion via the practical necessity of driving coupled with its status as a "privilege" has been much abused by the State.
How do you "lots of people" would feel if they knew that the NRA has restrictions for accessing their mascot's costumes, but refuse to support even minor restrictions to access guns? Or how do you think those "lots of people" would feel if they knew that the NRA and gun rights lobby groups were lobbying to rearm violent offenders and convicted killers?Lots of people who would otherwise be in favor of various gun restrictions will balk at the idea of giving the State new leverage of that kind.
And you are on one side complaining about cars, in response to a gun lobby making it harder to access a costume than a gun..To repeat: it's a "both sides" problem; the only major political issue I know of actually held hostage by irrational ravings on "both sides", extremists threatening the bulk of the citizenry from "both sides".
What kind is that? The "kind" who find the level of gun violence to be abhorrent? The "kind" who find the absolute hateful rhetoric that supports the rights to have even more guns, leading to more gun violence to be abhorrent? The "kind" who question how and why people still defend gun rights, even when it comes to violent criminals, because the alternative would be even 'reasonable gun regulations'?That kind of dishonest slander, bad faith argument, and slimeball rhetoric is why you and your kind are having so much trouble getting what seem to you - and me, and almost everyone else, as you would know if you paid attention - like perfectly sensible gun control regulations, made into law. You guys can't even spare the people on your side, backing your agenda, your spittle. Do you even know how crazy that sounds?
You mean like proponents of sensible gun control measures lost in the past? Like Obama, for example?People are not going vote somebody who thinks and talks like that into political power over them. In my area over the years I've seen a half a dozen political candidates lose on that factor - more than on abortion, more than on "taxes". And if Clinton loses in the general, my guess is that will be a significant factor in her case as well - which you can blame on the face in the mirror.
Iceaura said:That kind of dishonest slander, bad faith argument, and slimeball rhetoric is why you and your kind are having so much trouble getting what seem to you―and me, and almost everyone else, as you would know if you paid attention―like perfectly sensible gun control regulations, made into law. You guys can't even spare the people on your side, backing your agenda, your spittle. Do you even know how crazy that sounds?
Utter nonsense. I made no such arguments regarding cars, and never disagreed that rearming violent criminals is a bad idea. I said nothing even slightly resembling either of those two assertions. Where are you getting this garbage?bells said:Look at your argument right now. Instead of even agreeing that rearming violent offenders is a bad idea, you start arguing that cars kill people.
I am informed by you of how crazy I sound to you. But you seem to be deranged in your reading of my posts. You have me saying all kinds of bizarre stuff, some of it the direct opposite of my actual posting. I can't prevent your hallucinations from sounding crazy to you.bells said:And you think your stance here is reasonable? Do you have any idea of just how crazy you sound?
I didn't "argue", I observed. In the US, that is a simple, plain, written down, legally bulletproof, fact. When you tell people in the US that even simply acknowledging their possession of Constitutional rights is crazy and dangerous, you lose their political support.bells said:Do you have any idea of how crazy and dangerous you sound when you argue that people have a right to put the lives of others at risk because 'guns'?
Not the guns involved in a crime. http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/21/news/police-selling-seized-guns/bells said:Henderson vs United States, protects the rights of a criminal when it comes to their guns and protects them from having their guns confiscated.
I hate to break it to you, but you guys are not a repository of good faith and common sense and reason in this matter, and your claim to be the moral good guys in possession of all the opposition to "stalkers" is invalidated by that very sentence - if it had any plausibility left.tiassa said:You know, you might say you were having a bad day when you made a stand for stalkers.
Symptomatic. Illustrative.tiassa said:You argued in defense of keeping stalkers and domestic abusers armed
Wishful thinking.tiassa said:You pitched a hell of a tantrum.
Maybe we have been too hasty with you Ice.You guys have a screw loose, and nobody is going to trust you until you recover your sense. And that is what has killed gun control in the US.
save it your dealing with a person who thinks shooting a mugger in the back as their running away is not extreme and normal, counter mugging some is not extreme and normal, threatening to shoot someone who disagrees with the pro gun agenda is normal and not extreme. to put it bluntly your dealing with an extremist who has consistently shown a casual disregard for truth, facts, and honesty on the topic. Ice bullshit argument is we could have common sense gun control if only the mean anti gun "extremists" ,who you think maybe something should be done about a rampant gun violence problem,wouldn't scare the poor persecuted gun owners so we have to cater to there delicate sensibilities because there want a weapon trumps everyone else right not to be killed as far as ice is concerned.Maybe we have been too hasty with you Ice.
Indulge me here... In a hypothetical "blank slate" US of A, second amendment concerns notwithstanding, what sort of reasonable and responsible gun ownership rules and restrictions would you support?
If you had a magic wand, would you advocate licensing the operation of firearms by private citizens? To the one, it seems you allude to favoring some type of restrictions, yet to the other you claim nothing can be done because of the constitution.
So, I'm asking, - point blank - in a hypothetical universe, do you think it is a good idea to have any sort of laws limiting or restricting ownership or use of guns? If so, what is reasonable - in your opinion?
An affirmative answer would be really nice at this point...
no ice paranoid delusional people who advocate and protect violence is what has stopped gun control. I have long since grown tired with your personal attacks and lies on this topic. you've shown zero intellectual honesty and have no morals at all. at the end of the day you happy helping terrorists kill people rather than have any common sense gun control measures. you are the perfect example of why some pro gun people advocate extreme measures, though despite your constant fucking lies about they are almost nonexistent, the childish hissy fit that when dealing with a weapon we think maybe we should require some semblance of responsibility and accountability something you have sown your self time and time again to be against. so spare us your rants we all understand the childish mentality behind them. you talk about both sides as if your some sort of rational middle ground but you lack so little self awareness and are so delusional that you can't see your one of the extremists. for fucks sake you freely admitted to being willing to crime with your gun if memory serves me correctly. and you some how think you have the right to lecture anybody on this topic. hell when the death threat by one of your buddy "responsible" irresponsible gun nuts here threaten me you didn't say a god damn thing because in your mind thats an acceptable thing to do in the gun debate threaten to kill the people who disagree with you. your sitting here making excuses for terrorists and criminals and you think have some sort of moral high ground?And that kind of accusation is nothing if not illustrative. You guys have a screw loose, and nobody is going to trust you until you recover your sense. And that (in my opinion) is what has killed gun control in the US. Too many people mistrust the advocates, with reason.
Very obvious reason.
So, I'm asking, - point blank - in a hypothetical universe, do you think it is a good idea to have any sort of laws limiting or restricting ownership or use of guns? If so, what is reasonable - in your opinion?
An "affirmative" answer? Would that be one that pretends that is in any way an honest question?randwolf said:So, I'm asking, - point blank - in a hypothetical universe, do you think it is a good idea to have any sort of laws limiting or restricting ownership or use of guns? If so, what is reasonable - in your opinion?
An affirmative answer would be really nice at this point...