Obnoxious, ignorant teens now demand curbs on guns

[WingNot]

Yes.  Yes they were.

And it should be pointed out to all, that when the agents of the Crown were sent to stop the Colonists from being selfish fetishists, the Crown bought themselves a war.'

Likewise we warn the advocates of tyranny, that the same fate awaits them should they be so stupid to repeat similar mistakes.

Forgetting the Bedroom....I always wanted to be a Minuteman!   

[Taxcontrol]

In the 30 years PRIOR to the passage of the 1990 gun free school zones legislation, there were 87 school shootings.

In the 28 (~30) years since the passage, there have bee 271 school shootings. Three times the number of shooting of the prior 30 years.

So I ask the question:

Is the gun free school zone legislation so effective that it warrants depriving US citizens of their rights?

Only presenting facts, I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why would you need to trace ownership?

So they can find deep pockets to sue if a weapon that once belonged to somebody wealthy gets used in a violent crime.  Leftists can be pretty creative to finding ways to separate people from their money, in order to fuel the Leviathan.

[Oceander]

You are asking people to prove a negative.
So you admit a secondary purpose of Insurance is to deny poor people the privilege of owning a car?  And that would be a good thing to apply to the right to self defense?  "Insurance as punishment" sort of takes "The process is the punishment" to a new level.

The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance.  The same applies to guns. 

[Cyber Liberty]

But sadly.... the stuckonstupid leftists aren't heeding our warnings.   They're mad (that they lost) and they're not gonna take it any more, gosh darnit!  As usual, we will have to 'show' them.

The redcoats in @INVAR's and my recollection thought the Colonialists would meekly stop being selfish fetishists.  We saw how that worked out.

[Frank Cannon]

You need to register a car to use it for its intended purpose.     

Nope. I have a beater field car to run around the property. It has no paperwork and was sold on a bill of sale as a parts car. It came from out of state where older cars don't have titles. The govt' doesn't know I own it and they never will.

I will also add that all the shiny new cars at your local dealer have no titles or registrations. They only have a certificate from the manufacturer that they built it. It doesn't get registered until someone buys it to drive. I know a guy who has a 1950 Town and Country convertible that has never been titled or registered. It is still on the manufacturers certificate. It has about 30K miles on it so it was driven without any paperwork.

[Frank Cannon]

The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance.  The same applies to guns.

People drive without insurance all the time. Guess you skipped the part of your policy called "Under insured/uninsured motorists".

[Jazzhead]

@skeeter

Yup, plus registration would do nothing to stop mass shootings which is why @Jazzhead refuses
to answer my question in an earlier post and at the top of this page.

I'm concerned about gun violence generally, not just mass shootings.   Registration and insurance will provide a means of assigning legal liability to the registered gun owner and encourage gun owners to transfer firearms lawfully and to swiftly report stolen guns.   Insurance can also, as with auto insurance, encourage safe practices and create a fund for the compensation of victims of gun violence. 

For mass shootings - typically (but not always, see Las Vegas) committed by the mentally unstable - I support laws permitting folks close to the individual to seek gun violence restraining orders that, following due process, would permit guns to be removed for a period of time. 

I do not support a ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons",  but could support raising the age for purchasing an semi-automatic to 21, and banning high capacity magazines.   

[Cyber Liberty]

The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance.  The same applies to guns.

That's where you (and @Jazzhead) always step off the cliff.  Driving a car on the public streets is a privilege, self defense (with the attendant requirement to be armed to properly in order to do so when faced with a larger predator) is a right.

[jpsb]

The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance.  The same applies to guns.

Driving a car is not an enumerated constitution right that is not to be infringed. And you have
not provided any evidence what so ever requiring a license and insurance has reduced mass
slayings via autos/trucks.

[edpc]

The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance.  The same applies to guns.

The day I buy insurance for a gun is the day an authentic, mint condition Walker Colt comes into my possession.

[jpsb]

I'm concerned about gun violence generally, not just mass shootings.   Registration and insurance will provide a means of assigning legal liability to the registered gun owner and encourage gun owners to transfer firearms lawfully and to swiftly report stolen guns.   Insurance can also, as with auto insurance, encourage safe practices and create a fund for the compensation of victims of gun violence. 

For mass shootings - typically (but not always, see Las Vegas) committed by the mentally unstable - I support laws permitting folks close to the individual to seek gun violence restraining orders that, following due process, would permit guns to be removed for a period of time. 

I do not support a ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons",  but could support raising the age for purchasing an semi-automatic to 21, and banning high capacity magazines.   

Just a quick note, we really know nothing about what really happened at Las Vegas, since gov (fbi)
has been completely silent on that. And right about now I would not believe one damn thing
the fbi puts out.

[XenaLee]

The redcoats in @INVAR's and my recollection thought the Colonialists would meekly stop being selfish fetishists.  We saw how that worked out.

Denial of reality is what lefties excel at.  Considering how much the left fears, hates and loathes the US Military (mostly Conservatives).... I think they have a glimmer of that  reality but just won't acknowledge it.  The radical core of elitists in control of their agenda will push it anyway.  What's a few (million) lives, anyway?  Collateral damage for securing their agenda.

[Jazzhead]

That's where you (and @Jazzhead) always step off the cliff.  Driving a car on the public streets is a privilege, self defense (with the attendant requirement to be armed to properly in order to do so when faced with a larger predator) is a right.

There is no effective difference from the standpoint of lawful regulation, except that a "right" cannot be denied, at least not arbitrarily.    But requiring you to register and insure your firearms doesn't deny you the ability to be "armed properly" to address an intruder.   But self-defense isn't what bothers you - you are a gun hobbyist, who doesn't want to pay the cost to insure the dozens of weapons in your collection.   Sorry, CL, some hobbies cost money.   But the cost to insure the gun you need for self-defense cannot by definition be prohibitive, or it would infringe upon on the right itself.     

[INVAR]

That's where you (and @Jazzhead) always step off the cliff.  Driving a car on the public streets is a privilege, self defense (with the attendant requirement to be armed to properly in order to do so when faced with a larger predator) is a right.

"Rights" are just community-granted privileges that government must of necessity, 'reasonably regulate' and rescind if the Collective so decides.

Refusing to surrender your rights to mere privilege is 'selfish'.

Haven't you been following the arguments?

Enumerated Rights can be regulated, taxed, licensed and restricted unless you abide by government-imposed mandates that permits you to exercise those 'rights', otherwise they are by default - abolished by default.

Unless of course 'Rights' are NOT enumerated, wherein they are untouchable and eternal.

Like abortion and homosexual marriage behaviors.

[Jazzhead]

Denial of reality is what lefties excel at.  Considering how much the left fears, hates and loathes the US Military (mostly Conservatives).... I think they have a glimmer of that  reality but just won't acknowledge it.  The radical core of elitists in control of their agenda will push it anyway.  What's a few (million) lives, anyway?  Collateral damage for securing their agenda.

Bunker dwellers like you are nuts. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I do not support a ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons",  but could support raising the age for purchasing an semi-automatic to 21, and banning high capacity magazines.   

Nobody has ever sufficiently explained it to me:  What's the problem with "high capacity magazines?"  If I'm walking down a street, and I am set upon by a gang of thugs, what state interest is served by limiting how many I am allowed to repel before the remainder of the group kills me?

Is this some variation of dumb-ass Coumo's line "You...don't...need...ten...bullets...to...kill...a...deer!"  (Only if you're a crappy marksman and don't care about ruining meat.)

[XenaLee]

Just a quick note, we really know nothing about what really happened at Las Vegas, since gov (fbi)
has been completely silent on that. And right about now I would not believe one damn thing
the fbi puts out.

Right about now.... it appears that the FBI is complicit in the mass shootings.  Nothing else explains why they continue, time after time.... incident after incident, to refuse to act, to investigate and to do their damned jobs.  It can't be incompetence.  Nobody is 'that' incompetent.  If that were true, why would they all keep their jobs?  No.... something else is afoot here.   Something even more stinky than the Clinton/Gorelick "wall".

[Cyber Liberty]

There is no effective difference from the standpoint of lawful regulation, except that a "right" cannot be denied, at least not arbitrarily.    But requiring you to register and insure your firearms doesn't deny you the ability to be "armed properly" to address an intruder.   But self-defense isn't what bothers you - you are a gun hobbyist, who doesn't want to pay the cost to insure the dozens of weapons in your collection.   Sorry, CL, some hobbies cost money.   But the cost to insure the gun you need for self-defense cannot by definition be prohibitive, or it would infringe upon on the right itself.   

You are making the claim that because I have a collection there is no self-defense value to my weapons, therefore I am not deserving of the right to defend myself against predators. 

You are full of it.  You are, in fact, full of what you seem to be made of.

[XenaLee]

Bunker dwellers like you are nuts.

Three little words, leftie.  GFY.   ^-^

[WingNot]

Three little words, leftie.  GFY.   ^-^

 

[INVAR]

There is no effective difference from the standpoint of lawful regulation, except that a "right" cannot be denied, at least not arbitrarily.

Oh bullshit.

You routinely advocate the arbitrary denial of the exercise of 'rights' to mere government-granted privileges so as to make the exercise of "rights' so limited and costly as to effectively abolish them.

But requiring you to register and insure your firearms doesn't deny you the ability to be "armed properly" to address an intruder. 

It will when you and your precious Statists make insurance costs so high and prohibitive that only the richest Hollywood and corporatist citizens or agents of the state can exercise that right.  Then you will move from firearms to knives, swords, slingshots and baseball bats.

It's what you advocates of tyranny always do.  You never stop moving the goalposts or the lines of where 'rights' are just regulated privileges of the state.

Unless it's abortion, government-run healthcare or homosexuality.

Bunker dwellers like you are nuts. 

I'm sure your next tyrannical suggestion will be to argue the empowerment of the State to imprison and eliminate 'bunker-dwelling nuts' that frighten you so.

Like I said - you are buying yourself a war and you will rue the day you were stupid enough to empower your behemoth government to instigate it.

[Restored]

So they can find deep pockets to sue if a weapon that once belonged to somebody wealthy gets used in a violent crime.  Leftists can be pretty creative to finding ways to separate people from their money, in order to fuel the Leviathan.

But if the gun is stolen, the owner is the victim of a crime. If a person steals your car and kills someone, you are not liable.
Better yet, if someone steals your car, rapes a woman in it and she gets pregnant, do you have to pay child support?

[INVAR]

Right about now.... it appears that the FBI is complicit in the mass shootings.  Nothing else explains why they continue, time after time.... incident after incident, to refuse to act, to investigate and to do their damned jobs.  It can't be incompetence.  Nobody is 'that' incompetent.  If that were true, why would they all keep their jobs?  No.... something else is afoot here.   Something even more stinky than the Clinton/Gorelick "wall".

FINALLY!  Someone here gets it.

It is why I have said that you cannot stop tranny via civil means, and that there is absolutely no redeeming of the politically-weaponized Alphabets that serve something far more sinister than the vast majority of Americans are even willing to contemplate.

Just one more reason why disarming us is so intently necessary; it serves the greater means to the end they seek.

[Cyber Liberty]

But if the gun is stolen, the owner is the victim of a crime. If a person steals your car and kills someone, you are not liable.

There are states that require you to report the theft of a gun to the police within 30 days of the crime.  If you don't, you can be prosecuted for a Felony, in effect making a crime victim into a criminal.