Hee-Haw was better.
Some states don't do that. Some states issue a drivers license for 20 years.
Not serious, but: I still remember Chris Rock joking about charging $5,000 a bullet. There would never be an innocent victim again, because you'd have to really, really want someone dead to unload the price of a car on your target.
Some states don't do that. Some states issue a drivers license for 20 years.
That was a comedy routine. Do people really believe that he believes it would work?
No, hence the "not serious" part.
Add in a constitutional right to drive and that goes away. I find it fascinating how cars are used as an analogy on both sides of the issue when it doesnt apply.
guns are protected by the 2nd amendment.
bullets are not.
ban the sale of bullets.
FailIf they were smart they'd jump the price of ammo by $50 a box. All the gun morons would buy the stock out within a few days.
How come you have to renew your drivers license by taking a test, but not your gun license?
It doesn't apply because there's really no laws for guns? You buy one and it's yours forever. You buy a car and it's rife with expenses from insurance to inspections. Both can kill you and one's only purpose is for death yet it has the most lax laws surrounding it.
Maybe that's the answer. Gun insurance!
To reduce the number of innocent bystanders shot by gangbangers the government should give then target shooting lessons. Less misses, less gangbangers.
1. Because owning a gun is a right, not a privilege.How come you have to renew your drivers license by taking a test, but not your gun license?
How come you have to get your vehicle inspected, but not your guns?
How come you have to turn in your plates if you no longer own your vehicle, but not your gun?
Seems reasonable (to me) that you and your guns should be subject to review.
I applaud you for your honesty.OK by me, I'm about as anti-gun as it gets. And yes, I want the 2nd Amendment repealed.
My guns are insured.It doesn't apply because there's really no laws for guns? You buy one and it's yours forever. You buy a car and it's rife with expenses from insurance to inspections. Both can kill you and one's only purpose is for death yet it has the most lax laws surrounding it.
Maybe that's the answer. Gun insurance!
And why is almost every amendment subject to interpretation except this one? Most people who want stronger gun control dont want to repeal the 2nd amendment, or force their way into your house and take your guns. (Actually, I would like to see this happen with assault rifles, but I simply dont believe the government should be allowed to take your stuff.) All that most gun control proponents want is reasonable controls of the sales of new weapons and some limitation on the ability to buy military grade weapons by private citizens. There are two "technical" things I think should be done: sale of assault rifles to private citizens should be banned, and the other thing I would like to see is limits on magazine capacity of other weapons sold to private citizens (and the way things are going, maybe even the police, but that is another issue). Does Joe average *really* need a Glock that can fire 15 rounds without reloading? Yes, these regulations would inflict some inconvenience on gun buyers/users, but every law requires some "sacrifice". Hell, when I go to the pharmacy to buy allergy tablets, I have to show ID and limit the quantity of pills I can buy.1. Because owning a gun is a right, not a privilege.
2.Because owning a gun is a right and not a privilege.
3.Because guns don't have plates.
4.The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution disagrees with you.
It is. Yes they do. Many if not most of the left of center gun grabbers in this forum disagree with you. Thanks for the banal and oft repeated argument on the 2nd Amendment.And why is almost every amendment subject to interpretation except this one? Most people who want stronger gun control dont want to repeal the 2nd amendment, or force their way into your house and take your guns. (Actually, I would like to see this happen with assault rifles, but I simply dont believe the government should be allowed to take your stuff.) All that most gun control proponents want is reasonable controls of the sales of new weapons and some limitation on the ability to buy military grade weapons by private citizens. There are two "technical" things I think should be done: sale of assault rifles to private citizens should be banned, and the other thing I would like to see is limits on magazine capacity of other weapons sold to private citizens (and the way things are going, maybe even the police, but that is another issue). Does Joe average *really* need a Glock that can fire 15 rounds without reloading? Yes, these regulations would inflict some inconvenience on gun buyers/users, but every law requires some "sacrifice". Hell, when I go to the pharmacy to buy allergy tablets, I have to show ID and limit the quantity of pills I can buy.
Edit: As for the "right" to "bear arms", this inevitably must be subject to limitations. Do you think this "right" means private citizens should be able to buy RPGs? Wait, if we are going to defend ourselves from the government, we certainly will need machine guns, tanks, and grenade launchers. Oh, and some stingers to shoot down those drones and helocopters they are going to send after us. Oh, and maybe even a few nukes for deterrence.
Because you aren't afraid like these minorities. Might want to google Gen. Gates.And why is almost every amendment subject to interpretation except this one? Most people who want stronger gun control dont want to repeal the 2nd amendment, or force their way into your house and take your guns. (Actually, I would like to see this happen with assault rifles, but I simply dont believe the government should be allowed to take your stuff.) All that most gun control proponents want is reasonable controls of the sales of new weapons and some limitation on the ability to buy military grade weapons by private citizens. There are two "technical" things I think should be done: sale of assault rifles to private citizens should be banned, and the other thing I would like to see is limits on magazine capacity of other weapons sold to private citizens (and the way things are going, maybe even the police, but that is another issue). Does Joe average *really* need a Glock that can fire 15 rounds without reloading? Yes, these regulations would inflict some inconvenience on gun buyers/users, but every law requires some "sacrifice". Hell, when I go to the pharmacy to buy allergy tablets, I have to show ID and limit the quantity of pills I can buy.
Edit: As for the "right" to "bear arms", this inevitably must be subject to limitations. Do you think this "right" means private citizens should be able to buy RPGs? Wait, if we are going to defend ourselves from the government, we certainly will need machine guns, tanks, and grenade launchers. Oh, and some stingers to shoot down those drones and helocopters they are going to send after us. Oh, and maybe even a few nukes for deterrence.
Ha, ha! Black powder burns so much dirtier than smokeless gunpowder does. It didn't take long for all the fowling to gum up the action of that AR and make it almost impossible work the bolt manually. Not to mention it didn't have enough pressure to reliably cycle the action. Or it gummed up the gas tube. Silly.Could try banning civilian sales of smokeless powder:
And why is almost every amendment subject to interpretation except this one? Most people who want stronger gun control dont want to repeal the 2nd amendment, or force their way into your house and take your guns. (Actually, I would like to see this happen with assault rifles, but I simply dont believe the government should be allowed to take your stuff.) All that most gun control proponents want is reasonable controls of the sales of new weapons and some limitation on the ability to buy military grade weapons by private citizens. There are two "technical" things I think should be done: sale of assault rifles to private citizens should be banned, and the other thing I would like to see is limits on magazine capacity of other weapons sold to private citizens (and the way things are going, maybe even the police, but that is another issue). Does Joe average *really* need a Glock that can fire 15 rounds without reloading? Yes, these regulations would inflict some inconvenience on gun buyers/users, but every law requires some "sacrifice". Hell, when I go to the pharmacy to buy allergy tablets, I have to show ID and limit the quantity of pills I can buy.
Edit: As for the "right" to "bear arms", this inevitably must be subject to limitations. Do you think this "right" means private citizens should be able to buy RPGs? Wait, if we are going to defend ourselves from the government, we certainly will need machine guns, tanks, and grenade launchers. Oh, and some stingers to shoot down those drones and helocopters they are going to send after us. Oh, and maybe even a few nukes for deterrence.