Know The Enemy of Liberty: the National Rifle Association

Travel is, and cars are the most commonly used form of travel... Just like handguns are protected because they are the most commonly used form of firearms.

 

Did you really just ask me to stop name calling and call me a name in the same sentance? I'm amazed by the efficiency of your hypocrisy.

Controls don't equal bans. Duh.

So, as a hispanic guy, do you believe that minorities are inherently more likely to be criminals because of their race, or do you think there might be other factors at play (such as income disparity)?
If income disparity is more of a factor than some sort of genetic predisposition, then the level of minorities in the US is totally immaterial.
If you believe minorities are genetically predisposed to crime, then you are a racist. After all, it's not just white folks that can be racist.

Gun phobia?!
Dude, I've got years of active duty infantry service and decades in the security industry that proves you're way off the mark with that failed insult.

 

Cute, trying to act like they didn't try to ban hundreds of firearms. You think maybe no one remembers?

 

And yet Australia has more guns now that it did in 1996 when the gun legislation reform was introduced

Legislative reform does not equal "taking the guns away"

 

and yet one still needs to kneel before the government in Australia to beg for a privilege.................
Kneel before Zod!!!

 

Is "they" everyone who actually seeks a rational compromise?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you feel you "kneel before the government to beg for a privilege" here in order to drive?

 

They being Diane Feinstein and crew, but feel free to be included if you feel the need to be. What was rational about what she wanted?

Is what you want rational?

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting. Link?

 

Diane Feinstein is an extremist kook. Saying her perspective is the norm is like claiming all white people are members of the Klan.

Is it rational to limit the ability of criminals to obtain firearms? Yes, I believe so.

 

Diane Feinstein is driving force in the Democratic Party and only through a lot of effort by Republicans did she get shut down. Under her latest AWB attempt my 1937 Ward's Western Field .22 bolt action rifle would have been declared a weapon of war. That is not reasonable.

I, like you, would like to limit criminal access to firearms. That is rational. Next step, how?

 

A .22 bolt action rifle being labeled a "weapon of war" is not only unreasonable, it's moronic. On that I think we can agree.
I disagree that Feinstein is "a driving force in the Democratic Party". As a Democrat, I've made it clear I believe her to be an extremist kook. The only reason she gets any level of support is because politics have become so partisan that individuals (on both sides) end up supporting things they know are stupid simply in order to ensure they get support from their counterparts when it's their turn to say something equally stupid.

Clearly, I have little faith in the ideas of most politicians, of either side.

Well, we clearly can't limit criminal access to firearms if criminals can easily purchase them just like any law-abiding citizen... This means we need to ensure sellers know whether or not they are selling to someone they shouldn't, and can be held accountable if they choose to sell to a prohibited person despite knowing they shouldn't.

 

You'll have to find a different way to achieve what you want. I will not have to submit a background check on my kids if I give them another gun, that would be unreasonable, don't you agree? I mean I've known them their whole lives, why would I have to get a UBC for them?

Right?

 

Depends... Do you believe there's any chance that someone will give their adult kid (who is ineligible for ownership) a firearm, then claim they were unaware of the criminal's record if they are ever questioned?

 

And how is that my responsibility? What you seem to want here is to legislate morality, and it can't be done. It's the parent's responsibility to not give their kids a firearm if they are ineligible for any reason. It is the kid's responsibility to not accept the firearm if they are ineligible to own it. Simple.

Is it the uncertainty of whether or not these people are going to adhere to their responsibilities that causes you distress?

 

Sure, everyone has the responsibility to "do the right thing". But that logic could just as easily mean we don't need any laws at all, right? After all, everyone should be individually responsible enough not to rape, commit murder, drink and drive, sell drugs to kids, etc... Why should there be laws representing these societal standards of behavior?

 

purely subjective.............

 

You're saying "the right thing" is a subjective measure? That would mean, in your opinion, that there is no universal right and wrong?

 

here's the proof.
You have a different opinion on what is right than I do..................accept that as a fact.

 

Since you don't believe in a universal right and wrong, how can you believe in having rules that apply to everyone?

 

So no one is responsible for their own choices? You want to legislate morality? You want to somehow keep people from making bad choices?

 

how can you deny the Bill of Rights?

 

Making murder (for example) illegal and punishable under the law somehow reduces personal responsibility for the commission of murder? How so?

 

Where did I deny the Bill of Rights?
You said that "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms that vary from individual to individual... Are you suggesting that someone who does deny the BoR has an opinion just as valid as that of someone who doesn't?