It's no secret that temporal relevancy fuels the fire of many a political debate. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing considering how shitty and apathetic the vast majority of Americans are. I'd rather people argue about gun control than motherfucking lady gaga or something equally meaningless.Then why do they keep trotting those dead kids out? I mean no disrespect to the families of the victims of that horrific day. But how can you deny that this bill is not a direct response to that 1 single event?
How about this then: Why does the .gov need to know (and collect $$) if I decide to pass on my VEHICLE to my children?we have had this conversation many times.
1. Why does the .gov need to know (and collect $$) if I decide to pass on my guns to my children?
How about this then: Why do i become a criminal for borrowing a friends VEHICLE w/o being properly licensed myself?2. Why do i become a felon for borrowing a friends firearm w/o getting a background check?
I'm admittedly ill-informed about this topic so I'll refrain from answering.3. Why didnt the current administration use background check's before selling guns to the cartel's to be used for murder?
Why is it bad to add additional impositions to law abiding citizens? You aren't taking anything away from them, just making it a little more challenging to acquire something in the interest of increasing safety all around. It would be no different than making the driving test harder.4. The only people these additional impositions would be law abiding citizens. Criminals will get their gun's regardless of the law.
I could go on but I will leave you with this.
5. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's a reason Americans don't want registration/universal background checks...
England and Australia BOTH Had confiscation of firearms years after they were registered. IN the case of Australia, they stole hundreds of millions of dollars (If not in the billions of dollars) of firearms from gun owners because they decided the firearms were illegal. No ability to get permits or licensing, just theft.
Is there not equal risk of this happening with vehicles?
So you're saying that criminals don't follow the law?Does it effect criminals? Nope, 80%+ already break laws when they obtain firearms for crimes.
It's not written in the Constitution that you have the right to own a vehicle. Driving is a privilege.
Gun ownership in America is a RIGHT.
![]()
There is a common law right to travel.It's not written in the Constitution that you have the right to own a vehicle. Driving is a privilege.
The notion of rights protected by Constitution is a delusion.Gun ownership in America is a RIGHT.
The notion of rights protected by Constitution is a delusion held by suckers.
Guns are not objectively violent or dangerous. A gun with no one to use it poses no greater risk than almost anything else.for an objectively violent and dangerous piece of property?
It's no secret that temporal relevancy fuels the fire of many a political debate. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing considering how shitty and apathetic the vast majority of Americans are. I'd rather people argue about gun control than motherfucking lady gaga or something equally meaningless.
Agreed its none of their business what I do with my vehicle.How about this then: Why does the .gov need to know (and collect $$) if I decide to pass on my VEHICLE to my children?
Again I agree you shouldn't be. Its no one's business who you borrow your property to. Unfortunately I wasn't alive to fight this battle. This same battle that provided the .gov a way to enslave its people and issue them their "papers". So they can easily identify you, so they can use anything they decide what you have done wrong against you.How about this then: Why do i become a criminal for borrowing a friends VEHICLE w/o being properly licensed myself?
You
I'm admittedly ill-informed about this topic so I'll refrain from answering.
The .gov has already imposed on every part of our lives why not 1 more.Why is it bad to add additional impositions to law abiding citizens? You aren't taking anything away from them, just making it a little more challenging to acquire something in the interest of increasing safety all around. It would be no different than making the driving test harder.
[/quote]Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is this not exactly what I've repeatedly said I think we need more of? More thorough safety and operational training and licensing processes for an objectively violent and dangerous piece of property?
I really hope you don't believe this stuff because everyone tells me you're really intelligent.
Proud day for Washington? Also from today :
House Passes Resolution to Bring CISPA to the Floor, Jumpstarting Cyber Privacy Debate All Over Again | Betabeat
US House moves toward passage of CISPA | PCWorld
President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill if it reaches his desk, according to a statement from the White House:
“The Administration, however, remains concerned that the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities.”
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If you believe gun control is necessary, then why not knife control? Baseball bat control? Hammer control? Screwdriver control?
They don't already know this? I thought you had to register your gun, etc.?
It wouldn't have changed it because it doesn't apply to the Sandy Hook situation (nor is it supposed to).
A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens.
Everyone can drive if they pass a test. That is not a privilege.