Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Dec 2012, 10:50 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Ruveyn wrote:
Driving a car is a licensed privilege. The right to bear arms is a right. Really, if there was as much scrutiny and as many attacks on driving and cars as on gun ownership and guns it would be nigh impossible to pass any kind of written or practical driving test.
Besides, why give the government anything else to f**k up and waste money on?
Those counties are actually stricter on gun laws than we’re led to believe.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Spoken like someone that can’t afford a snow mobile and/or boat. Yeah, I already said that armed guards would be expensive. After a while of nothing happening to justify their existence the accounting bean counters would want to stop that program. I know how bean counters work and it’s all about the buck.
/\ Read what I said about that.
And I can see their point, given the nuttiness of the anti-gun side.
They make guns for various tasks. Some are designed specifically for target shooting . It helps to know a little before making an assertion like "for killing only".
Quote:
Why couldn't gun ownership/use be a test right, such as being licensed to drive a motor vehicle. To get the permit or license one would have to be of age, not a convicted felon or inmate of a psychiatric clinic and one would have to pass tests practical and written. If the thing could be administered fairly and in a non-corrupt manner (no bribing the testers) that should answer the objections or fears that many people have concerning firearms.
Driving a car is a licensed privilege. The right to bear arms is a right. Really, if there was as much scrutiny and as many attacks on driving and cars as on gun ownership and guns it would be nigh impossible to pass any kind of written or practical driving test.
Besides, why give the government anything else to f**k up and waste money on?
Quote:
In Switzerland and Israel where men of a certain age are obliged to perform militia duty, possession of automatic and semi-automatic fire arms is widespread, but there is no sign of excessive homicide by use of firearms. So merely having the firearm is no sure predictor that it will be misused. And in the context of a militia (presumable legal and well ordered) there is training and discipline for firearm use.
Those counties are actually stricter on gun laws than we’re led to believe.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Quote:
In order to have armed guards on duty at schools, Republicans will have to do something that makes them rather want to eat dog sh** - and that's raise taxes. But the lives of our children are more important than buying a motor boat or snow mobile, er.. I mean snow machine.
Spoken like someone that can’t afford a snow mobile and/or boat. Yeah, I already said that armed guards would be expensive. After a while of nothing happening to justify their existence the accounting bean counters would want to stop that program. I know how bean counters work and it’s all about the buck.
Quote:
Actually, as a matter of fact, I'm delighted that the NRA teaches gun safety courses. But as ruveyn suggests, there should be gun licensing comparable to a driving test, which would disqualify felons and mentally ill persons, before one can own a gun. .
/\ Read what I said about that.
Quote:
And while self defense is everyone's right, owning a gun isn't a right granted from God. There are gun advocates who have absolutely made this a religious issue beyond the point of sanity.
And I can see their point, given the nuttiness of the anti-gun side.
Quote:
And no, I don't think guns are themselves bad, but as they are meant specifically to kill, their use is limited only to that scope, and it's absurd to think otherwise..
They make guns for various tasks. Some are designed specifically for target shooting . It helps to know a little before making an assertion like "for killing only".
So you don't want your right to own a gun infringed upon? But do you feel the same way about the right to vote (IE - voter suppression through demanding ID of voters unable to purchase said ID due to poverty or disability)?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I'm willing to present my drivers licence (and CCW for handguns), fill out an ATF form 4473, and pay $5 for a NICS check for each gun purchase so I don't see why voters have an issue merely presenting some kind of ID to vote.
My point being, If you oppose gun control as interfering with a right, do you oppose voter suppression targeting specific voters?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
21 Dec 2012, 11:49 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
My point being, If you oppose gun control as interfering with a right, do you oppose voter suppression targeting specific voters?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
22 Dec 2012, 12:19 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Ruveyn wrote:
Driving a car is a licensed privilege. The right to bear arms is a right. Really, if there was as much scrutiny and as many attacks on driving and cars as on gun ownership and guns it would be nigh impossible to pass any kind of written or practical driving test.
Besides, why give the government anything else to f**k up and waste money on?
Those counties are actually stricter on gun laws than we’re led to believe.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Spoken like someone that can’t afford a snow mobile and/or boat. Yeah, I already said that armed guards would be expensive. After a while of nothing happening to justify their existence the accounting bean counters would want to stop that program. I know how bean counters work and it’s all about the buck.
/\ Read what I said about that.
And I can see their point, given the nuttiness of the anti-gun side.
They make guns for various tasks. Some are designed specifically for target shooting . It helps to know a little before making an assertion like "for killing only".
Quote:
Why couldn't gun ownership/use be a test right, such as being licensed to drive a motor vehicle. To get the permit or license one would have to be of age, not a convicted felon or inmate of a psychiatric clinic and one would have to pass tests practical and written. If the thing could be administered fairly and in a non-corrupt manner (no bribing the testers) that should answer the objections or fears that many people have concerning firearms.
Driving a car is a licensed privilege. The right to bear arms is a right. Really, if there was as much scrutiny and as many attacks on driving and cars as on gun ownership and guns it would be nigh impossible to pass any kind of written or practical driving test.
Besides, why give the government anything else to f**k up and waste money on?
Quote:
In Switzerland and Israel where men of a certain age are obliged to perform militia duty, possession of automatic and semi-automatic fire arms is widespread, but there is no sign of excessive homicide by use of firearms. So merely having the firearm is no sure predictor that it will be misused. And in the context of a militia (presumable legal and well ordered) there is training and discipline for firearm use.
Those counties are actually stricter on gun laws than we’re led to believe.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Quote:
In order to have armed guards on duty at schools, Republicans will have to do something that makes them rather want to eat dog sh** - and that's raise taxes. But the lives of our children are more important than buying a motor boat or snow mobile, er.. I mean snow machine.
Spoken like someone that can’t afford a snow mobile and/or boat. Yeah, I already said that armed guards would be expensive. After a while of nothing happening to justify their existence the accounting bean counters would want to stop that program. I know how bean counters work and it’s all about the buck.
Quote:
Actually, as a matter of fact, I'm delighted that the NRA teaches gun safety courses. But as ruveyn suggests, there should be gun licensing comparable to a driving test, which would disqualify felons and mentally ill persons, before one can own a gun. .
/\ Read what I said about that.
Quote:
And while self defense is everyone's right, owning a gun isn't a right granted from God. There are gun advocates who have absolutely made this a religious issue beyond the point of sanity.
And I can see their point, given the nuttiness of the anti-gun side.
Quote:
And no, I don't think guns are themselves bad, but as they are meant specifically to kill, their use is limited only to that scope, and it's absurd to think otherwise..
They make guns for various tasks. Some are designed specifically for target shooting . It helps to know a little before making an assertion like "for killing only".
So you don't want your right to own a gun infringed upon? But do you feel the same way about the right to vote (IE - voter suppression through demanding ID of voters unable to purchase said ID due to poverty or disability)?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I'm willing to present my drivers licence (and CCW for handguns), fill out an ATF form 4473, and pay $5 for a NICS check for each gun purchase so I don't see why voters have an issue merely presenting some kind of ID to vote.
My point being, If you oppose gun control as interfering with a right, do you oppose voter suppression targeting specific voters?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Duh, having to jump through hoops (ID, CCW, ATF4473, NICS, to name a few) is gun control!
Lord.........
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Dec 2012, 1:06 am
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
My point being, If you oppose gun control as interfering with a right, do you oppose voter suppression targeting specific voters?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The fish goes over my head.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Dec 2012, 1:08 am
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Ruveyn wrote:
Driving a car is a licensed privilege. The right to bear arms is a right. Really, if there was as much scrutiny and as many attacks on driving and cars as on gun ownership and guns it would be nigh impossible to pass any kind of written or practical driving test.
Besides, why give the government anything else to f**k up and waste money on?
Those counties are actually stricter on gun laws than we’re led to believe.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Spoken like someone that can’t afford a snow mobile and/or boat. Yeah, I already said that armed guards would be expensive. After a while of nothing happening to justify their existence the accounting bean counters would want to stop that program. I know how bean counters work and it’s all about the buck.
/\ Read what I said about that.
And I can see their point, given the nuttiness of the anti-gun side.
They make guns for various tasks. Some are designed specifically for target shooting . It helps to know a little before making an assertion like "for killing only".
Quote:
Why couldn't gun ownership/use be a test right, such as being licensed to drive a motor vehicle. To get the permit or license one would have to be of age, not a convicted felon or inmate of a psychiatric clinic and one would have to pass tests practical and written. If the thing could be administered fairly and in a non-corrupt manner (no bribing the testers) that should answer the objections or fears that many people have concerning firearms.
Driving a car is a licensed privilege. The right to bear arms is a right. Really, if there was as much scrutiny and as many attacks on driving and cars as on gun ownership and guns it would be nigh impossible to pass any kind of written or practical driving test.
Besides, why give the government anything else to f**k up and waste money on?
Quote:
In Switzerland and Israel where men of a certain age are obliged to perform militia duty, possession of automatic and semi-automatic fire arms is widespread, but there is no sign of excessive homicide by use of firearms. So merely having the firearm is no sure predictor that it will be misused. And in the context of a militia (presumable legal and well ordered) there is training and discipline for firearm use.
Those counties are actually stricter on gun laws than we’re led to believe.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Quote:
In order to have armed guards on duty at schools, Republicans will have to do something that makes them rather want to eat dog sh** - and that's raise taxes. But the lives of our children are more important than buying a motor boat or snow mobile, er.. I mean snow machine.
Spoken like someone that can’t afford a snow mobile and/or boat. Yeah, I already said that armed guards would be expensive. After a while of nothing happening to justify their existence the accounting bean counters would want to stop that program. I know how bean counters work and it’s all about the buck.
Quote:
Actually, as a matter of fact, I'm delighted that the NRA teaches gun safety courses. But as ruveyn suggests, there should be gun licensing comparable to a driving test, which would disqualify felons and mentally ill persons, before one can own a gun. .
/\ Read what I said about that.
Quote:
And while self defense is everyone's right, owning a gun isn't a right granted from God. There are gun advocates who have absolutely made this a religious issue beyond the point of sanity.
And I can see their point, given the nuttiness of the anti-gun side.
Quote:
And no, I don't think guns are themselves bad, but as they are meant specifically to kill, their use is limited only to that scope, and it's absurd to think otherwise..
They make guns for various tasks. Some are designed specifically for target shooting . It helps to know a little before making an assertion like "for killing only".
So you don't want your right to own a gun infringed upon? But do you feel the same way about the right to vote (IE - voter suppression through demanding ID of voters unable to purchase said ID due to poverty or disability)?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I'm willing to present my drivers licence (and CCW for handguns), fill out an ATF form 4473, and pay $5 for a NICS check for each gun purchase so I don't see why voters have an issue merely presenting some kind of ID to vote.
My point being, If you oppose gun control as interfering with a right, do you oppose voter suppression targeting specific voters?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Duh, having to jump through hoops (ID, CCW, ATF4473, NICS, to name a few) is gun control!
Lord.........
Well, that's how people feel having to produce document after document in order to prove they're qualified to vote - when the very purpose is to discourage members of certain groups from casting a ballot.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
22 Dec 2012, 10:37 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Ruveyn wrote:
Driving a car is a licensed privilege. The right to bear arms is a right. Really, if there was as much scrutiny and as many attacks on driving and cars as on gun ownership and guns it would be nigh impossible to pass any kind of written or practical driving test.
Besides, why give the government anything else to f**k up and waste money on?
Those counties are actually stricter on gun laws than we’re led to believe.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Spoken like someone that can’t afford a snow mobile and/or boat. Yeah, I already said that armed guards would be expensive. After a while of nothing happening to justify their existence the accounting bean counters would want to stop that program. I know how bean counters work and it’s all about the buck.
/\ Read what I said about that.
And I can see their point, given the nuttiness of the anti-gun side.
They make guns for various tasks. Some are designed specifically for target shooting . It helps to know a little before making an assertion like "for killing only".
Quote:
Why couldn't gun ownership/use be a test right, such as being licensed to drive a motor vehicle. To get the permit or license one would have to be of age, not a convicted felon or inmate of a psychiatric clinic and one would have to pass tests practical and written. If the thing could be administered fairly and in a non-corrupt manner (no bribing the testers) that should answer the objections or fears that many people have concerning firearms.
Driving a car is a licensed privilege. The right to bear arms is a right. Really, if there was as much scrutiny and as many attacks on driving and cars as on gun ownership and guns it would be nigh impossible to pass any kind of written or practical driving test.
Besides, why give the government anything else to f**k up and waste money on?
Quote:
In Switzerland and Israel where men of a certain age are obliged to perform militia duty, possession of automatic and semi-automatic fire arms is widespread, but there is no sign of excessive homicide by use of firearms. So merely having the firearm is no sure predictor that it will be misused. And in the context of a militia (presumable legal and well ordered) there is training and discipline for firearm use.
Those counties are actually stricter on gun laws than we’re led to believe.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Quote:
In order to have armed guards on duty at schools, Republicans will have to do something that makes them rather want to eat dog sh** - and that's raise taxes. But the lives of our children are more important than buying a motor boat or snow mobile, er.. I mean snow machine.
Spoken like someone that can’t afford a snow mobile and/or boat. Yeah, I already said that armed guards would be expensive. After a while of nothing happening to justify their existence the accounting bean counters would want to stop that program. I know how bean counters work and it’s all about the buck.
Quote:
Actually, as a matter of fact, I'm delighted that the NRA teaches gun safety courses. But as ruveyn suggests, there should be gun licensing comparable to a driving test, which would disqualify felons and mentally ill persons, before one can own a gun. .
/\ Read what I said about that.
Quote:
And while self defense is everyone's right, owning a gun isn't a right granted from God. There are gun advocates who have absolutely made this a religious issue beyond the point of sanity.
And I can see their point, given the nuttiness of the anti-gun side.
Quote:
And no, I don't think guns are themselves bad, but as they are meant specifically to kill, their use is limited only to that scope, and it's absurd to think otherwise..
They make guns for various tasks. Some are designed specifically for target shooting . It helps to know a little before making an assertion like "for killing only".
So you don't want your right to own a gun infringed upon? But do you feel the same way about the right to vote (IE - voter suppression through demanding ID of voters unable to purchase said ID due to poverty or disability)?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I'm willing to present my drivers licence (and CCW for handguns), fill out an ATF form 4473, and pay $5 for a NICS check for each gun purchase so I don't see why voters have an issue merely presenting some kind of ID to vote.
My point being, If you oppose gun control as interfering with a right, do you oppose voter suppression targeting specific voters?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Duh, having to jump through hoops (ID, CCW, ATF4473, NICS, to name a few) is gun control!
Lord.........
Well, that's how people feel having to produce document after document in order to prove they're qualified to vote - when the very purpose is to discourage members of certain groups from casting a ballot.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Red Herring Falacy
And my point is if I have to jump through hoops to buy a gun they can do the same to vote.
I don't think producing a drivers licence or some other ID in addition to the voter ID card is asking much considering it takes considerably more to merely buy a gun.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Dec 2012, 3:38 pm
22 Dec 2012, 6:45 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Not a Red Herring - I'm trying to make a point.
You complain that exercising your right to buy and fire guns is infringed upon, but you won't extend the same courtesy to American citizens simply wanting to vote.
Owning guns - even if it is a constitutional right - pales before the right for a citizen to determine the course of his or her government. And yet, how many gun advocates, who are now tied at the hip to the Republican party, defend this actual sacrosanct right to all Americans?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
You complain that exercising your right to buy and fire guns is infringed upon, but you won't extend the same courtesy to American citizens simply wanting to vote.
Owning guns - even if it is a constitutional right - pales before the right for a citizen to determine the course of his or her government. And yet, how many gun advocates, who are now tied at the hip to the Republican party, defend this actual sacrosanct right to all Americans?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
That's twice you've missed my point, plain as it was....
BTW: Both rights are equally sacred.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Dec 2012, 6:47 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Not a Red Herring - I'm trying to make a point.
You complain that exercising your right to buy and fire guns is infringed upon, but you won't extend the same courtesy to American citizens simply wanting to vote.
Owning guns - even if it is a constitutional right - pales before the right for a citizen to determine the course of his or her government. And yet, how many gun advocates, who are now tied at the hip to the Republican party, defend this actual sacrosanct right to all Americans?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
You complain that exercising your right to buy and fire guns is infringed upon, but you won't extend the same courtesy to American citizens simply wanting to vote.
Owning guns - even if it is a constitutional right - pales before the right for a citizen to determine the course of his or her government. And yet, how many gun advocates, who are now tied at the hip to the Republican party, defend this actual sacrosanct right to all Americans?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
That's twice you've missed my point, plain as it was....
BTW: Both rights are equally sacred.
If that was your point, I didn't get it.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
23 Dec 2012, 1:45 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Dec 2012, 3:10 am
23 Dec 2012, 3:37 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Dec 2012, 3:58 am
23 Dec 2012, 4:09 am
23 Dec 2012, 12:42 pm
Quote:
And what does any of this have to do with the ATF?
It's just the left grasping at straws.
Business as usual.....
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Dec 2012, 12:54 pm
JBlitzen wrote:
Haha, who's outlawing contraception?
And what's with abortion? Not every woman on earth is hell-bent on murdering her own offspring.
And what does any of this have to do with the ATF?
And what's with abortion? Not every woman on earth is hell-bent on murdering her own offspring.
And what does any of this have to do with the ATF?
As a matter of fact, since Rick Santorum had run for president on a platform of limiting contraception, and linking it to abortion, plenty of Republicans around the country had jumped on board - even after Santorum dropped out.
And I agree, I've drifted away from the central issue of the ATF. I was trying to make a point, but it got lost in the argument.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
