The Political Party

[SHRED]

Handguns and rifles registered and insured.

Buyers to receive a thorough background check and licensed for proof of proficiency. 

Sales involve proof of insurance and title transfer just like a vehicle.

Why not?

--

[guido61]

---

SHRED wrote:

Handguns and rifles registered and insured.

Buyers to receive a thorough background check and licensed for proof of proficiency. 

Sales involve proof of insurance and title transfer just like a vehicle.

Why not?

--

---

I've been asking the same thing for weeks now.

Prepare for crickets.

[moonlightin]

And the bullets should be costly just like gas is.

[nedezero1]

---

SHRED wrote:

Handguns and rifles registered and insured.

Buyers to receive a thorough background check and licensed for proof of proficiency. 

Sales involve proof of insurance and title transfer just like a vehicle.

Why not?

--

---

1. Owning firearms is a right, owning a car is not.

2. Based on your logic, showing an ID to vote shouldn't be a problem then either.

3. If it's silly that lawful gun owners are afraid of criminals with guns, then it's five times as silly that gun control advocates are afraid of lawful gun owners with guns.

[guido61]

1. Owning firearms is a right, owning a car is not.

Sure it is. Who said owning a car isn't a right? Every American has a right to own a car as long as they don't abuse that right and play by the rules. Same as with guns. The right to own a car is protected by the Ninth Amendment.

2. Based on your logic, showing an ID to vote shouldn't be a problem then either.

Or alcohol. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion above though.

3. If it's silly that lawful gun owners are afraid of criminals with guns, then it's five times as silly that gun control advocates are afraid of lawful gun owners with guns.

---

Setting the strawman bar even HIGHER tonight, Ned?

[Jack Walker]

Because giving in to anything liberals wing nuts want should be a crime.

[guido61]

---

Jack Walker wrote:

Because giving in to anything liberals wing nuts want should be a crime.

---

That might be the most honest answer yet.   This is more about political "wins" for the conservatives (or, as you more accurately pointed out, making sure the other guys DON'T win) than anything to do with what's best for the American people.

[nedezero1]

---

guido61 wrote:

1. Owning firearms is a right, owning a car is not.

Sure it is. Who said owning a car isn't a right? Every American has a right to own a car as long as they don't abuse that right and play by the rules. Same as with guns. The right to own a car is protected by the Ninth Amendment.

2. Based on your logic, showing an ID to vote shouldn't be a problem then either.

Or alcohol. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion above though.

3. If it's silly that lawful gun owners are afraid of criminals with guns, then it's five times as silly that gun control advocates are afraid of lawful gun owners with guns.

---

Setting the strawman bar even HIGHER tonight, Ned?

---

Sorry, spin doesn't cut. Firearms are specifically mentioned in the constitution. You're just going to have to get over that.

Oh and the gratuitous use of "strawmen" doesn't negate that fact that many here have accused gun rights advocates of being paranoid or "afraid".

[guido61]

---

nedezero1 wrote:

Sorry, spin doesn't cut. Firearms are specifically mentioned in the constitution. You're just going to have to get over that.

---

That's nice that firearms are specifically mentioned but that doesn't mean owning a car isn't a right as well.   Madison originally opposed the idea of a "Bill of Rights" because he was afraid that people would take it mean that anything not specifically mentioned and protected would be fair game for the government to infringe upon.  The inclusion of the Ninth was the protection against that abuse.

Who doesn't have the right to own a car?  Some people might lose the right to drive them on public roads due to abuses of that right, but they can still own them.   And, just as with guns, the right to own a car doesn't mean you get to own and operate ANY sort of vehicle at ANY time and use it ANY where.  With rights come responsibilities.

I really don't see what I have to "get over" here.   What YOU may need to get over, however, is the fact that the most conservative justices on the SC all rather recently agreed that while you have a right to keep and bear a gun, you don't have the right to keep and bear ANY gun ANY where at ANY time.

[Jack Walker]

So no registered voters, just registered weapons? Is this the part where liberals get everything they want but never have to give anything in return? Strawman my ass. This is nothing more than the left wanting to control all facets of American life. I think you're in for a hard fight.

[newbie chick]

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

1. Owning firearms is a right, owning a car is not.

2. Based on your logic, showing an ID to vote shouldn't be a problem then either.

3. If it's silly that lawful gun owners are afraid of criminals with guns, then it's five times as silly that gun control advocates are afraid of lawful gun owners with guns.

---

Nobody is killed by voting, unlike cars or guns operated by irresponsible owners.

Who is afraid of guns? Are we also afraid of cars if we agree with SHREDs plan?

[Jack Walker]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Jack Walker wrote:

Because giving in to anything liberals wing nuts want should be a crime.

---

That might be the most honest answer yet.   This is more about political "wins" for the conservatives (or, as you more accurately pointed out, making sure the other guys DON'T win) than anything to do with what's best for the American people.

---

That would be credible if the left hadn't adopted its position on registered voters. Now you prove you are nothing but a farce. Registered voters are definitely what is good for the American electoral process but you guys say no. You have no viable reason for that. People in my state are an independent lot and they don't like other people telling them how to live. Gun control should be left to the independent states. A few people broke a law so now all law abiding people should pa?. I don't think so.  

[Belva]

I'm not sure registering guns will help. I know I have guns that are family heirlooms and I don't plan on registering any of them. A better system of background checks is a good start. Mentally ill people are already supposed to be registered. Enforcement of laws already on the books is the best place to start IMO. It would be the quickest route to curbing gun violence.

[notgonnadoit]

What events and circumstances would this insurance cover, and what do you do if private insurers have no desire to issue such policies?

[newbie chick]

---

notgonnadoit wrote:

What events and circumstances would this insurance cover, and what do you do if private insurers have no desire to issue such policies?

---

The NRA could make a few bucks by offering the liability insurance themselves on a not-for-net- profit basis. .

[RedRoadEnsemble]

---

Belva wrote:
I'm not sure registering guns will help. I know I have guns that are family heirlooms and I don't plan on registering any of them. A better system of background checks is a good start. Mentally ill people are already supposed to be registered. Enforcement of laws already on the books is the best place to start IMO. It would be the quickest route to curbing gun violence.

---

Mentally ill people have been off the grid since the 70s.

[notgonnadoit]

---

newbie chick wrote:

---

notgonnadoit wrote:

What events and circumstances would this insurance cover, and what do you do if private insurers have no desire to issue such policies?

---

The NRA could make a few bucks by offering the liability insurance themselves on a not-for-net- profit basis. .

---

Hmmm. They're going to need a bigger check book.

[SHRED]

---

newbie chick wrote:

---

notgonnadoit wrote:

What events and circumstances would this insurance cover, and what do you do if private insurers have no desire to issue such policies?

---

The NRA could make a few bucks by offering the liability insurance themselves on a not-for-net- profit basis. .

---

You would think the weapons manufacturers themselves would want some accountable regulations like insurance, licensing, and registration just to protect their long term interests. Otherwise, if these violent trends continue a real possibility of draconian measure could take place.

--

[newbie chick]

---

SHRED wrote:

You would think the weapons manufacturers themselves would want some accountable regulations like insurance, licensing, and registration just to protect their long term interests. Otherwise, if these violent trends continue a real possibility of draconian measure could take place.

--

---

It was very amusing listening to Wayne LaPierre attempt to tap dance around the issue of background checks at gun shows and between private sellers.

[madryan]

---

moonlightin wrote:

And the bullets should be costly just like gas is.

---

Have you seen the price of ammo lately?  It's nuts.

I'm all for strict licensing and whatnot.  Make people demonstrate proficiency and whatnot before they can own one.  I'm five with that.