Gun ownership poll

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

“Nuclear weapons, semi’s”

See, you’ve got to be trolling. You aren’t even trying to form a coherent argument.

Just because you don’t understand something…

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Just because you don’t understand something…

Actually, I think we established earlier you didn't know what a semi-automatic even actually meant. So... nice burn?

[Carter08]

Earlier you said you agreed people do not have the right to nuclear weapons. Use the Second Amendment and explain how you can possibly agree with that. Please address this straight on.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Earlier you said you agreed people do not have the right to nuclear weapons. Use the Second Amendment and explain how you can possibly agree with that. Please address this straight on.

We have already been over this, straight on. No private individual has a nuclear bomb at all. How the hell can I conceal carry a Nuke? How can I possibly use a nuke for home defense? How can I possibly use a nuke to defend myself or my family outside the home? It has no legitimate use at all, it is huge, it takes tons of people to maintain, store, and keep. Also, again, it does not even exist as a private arm at all. We went over the SC's common use standard, we went over the very narrow and limited ways the state can put restrictions on core rights, we have been over this ad nauseam. It has already been answered in depth. You just don't like it.

It should be treated the SAME as the rest of the Bill of Rights (apply some basic logic). Not even the most left wing courts in America are not agreeing with an ability to do what you have proposed.

Do you have any logical, reasonable points? I've even given your side some to use, since the ones you choose to make are so poor that you must be trolling. Are you still upset over PWCC's fraud ring? I know that got you to weirdly stalk me around a few threads. Are we just on part 2 of that? You've got to be trolling.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

We have already been over this, straight on. No private individual has a nuclear bomb at all. How the hell can I conceal carry a Nuke? How can I possibly use a nuke for home defense? How can I possibly use a nuke to defend myself or my family outside the home? It has no legitimate use at all, it is huge, it takes tons of people to maintain, store, and keep. Also, again, it does not even exist as a private arm at all. We went over the SC's common use standard, we went over the very narrow and limited ways the state can put restrictions on core rights, we have been over this ad nauseam. It has already been answered in depth. You just don't like it.

It should be treated the SAME as the rest of the Bill of Rights (apply some basic logic). Not even the most left wing courts in America are not agreeing with an ability to do what you have proposed.

Do you have any logical, reasonable points? I've even given your side some to use, since the ones you choose to make are so poor that you must be trolling. Are you still upset over PWCC's fraud ring? I know that got you to weirdly stalk me around a few threads. Are we just on part 2 of that? You've got to be trolling.

Did not address it head on and went to some seriously unhinged rants yet again. Is your standard for what is allowed something you can conceal carry? Something that can logically be used in home defense?

[1952boyntoncollector]

My point was not really allow search for guns for whatever reason..

going to be a big argument of what is a reasonable search, but yeah, allow for a reasonable search.......someone claim heard a gun shot down the block and now there are 4 kids at 2 am hanging out at the corner nearby......is that reasonable to search? what if no real description..

So fine, can use 'reasonable' search, you can say guns are illegal to be carried by kids on the street and they still are right now, but obviously this law is not being enforced with all of the killing.

Thus was the idea of a metal detector. However as we have seen, people see police encounters against minorities and we see people getting killed for being pulled over initially for a air freshiner or perhaps people running away from the police because had some other non violent item..

I just making a proposal. there has got to be a way to remove guns off the street besides persuing someone who just killed someone.

in my proposal you are allowed to have gun in your house....

they are trying to say 18 year olds shouldnt have a gun, heck i would say anyone under 50.....i dont see many gun crimes caused by people over 50..perhaps under 50 brains arent fully formed plus kids would think twice before trying to rob an 'older ' person.....i not serious on this but you get my point with arbitary ages..

another issue i propose is that you have to pass some higher scrutiny to have a gun on a street and pay for insurance , and people representing poorer people would say it is unfair to the poor but if it costs 5k or so to be able to get a concealed weapon permit which includes testing for mental health etc. and a million in liability insurance or post it yourself. maybe thats an idea as well... i dont see an insurance carrier providing insurance to someone who committed a prior gun crime..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

My point was not really allow search for guns for whatever reason..

going to be a big argument of what is a reasonable search, but yeah, allow for a reasonable search.......someone claim heard a gun shot down the block and now there are 4 kids at 2 am hanging out at the corner nearby......is that reasonable to search? what if no real description..

So fine, can use 'reasonable' search, you can say guns are illegal to be carried by kids on the street and they still are right now, but obviously this law is not being enforced with all of the killing.

Thus was the idea of a metal detector. However as we have seen, people see police encounters against minorities and we see people getting killed for being pulled over initially for a air freshiner or perhaps people running away from the police because had some other non violent item..

I just making a proposal. there has got to be a way to remove guns off the street besides persuing someone who just killed someone.

in my proposal you are allowed to have gun in your house....

they are trying to say 18 year olds shouldnt have a gun, heck i would say anyone under 50.....i dont see many gun crimes caused by people over 50..perhaps under 50 brains arent fully formed plus kids would think twice before trying to rob an 'older ' person.....i not serious on this but you get my point with arbitary ages..

another issue i propose is that you have to pass some higher scrutiny to have a gun on a street and pay for insurance , and people representing poorer people would say it is unfair to the poor but if it costs 5k or so to be able to get a concealed weapon permit which includes testing for mental health etc. and a million in liability insurance or post it yourself. maybe thats an idea as well... i dont see an insurance carrier providing insurance to someone who committed a prior gun crime..

This is in direct contradiction to the proposal in 567, though the proposal to only any 2A rights to people over 50 is no less strange and absurd. Not even the 9th circuit will agree with that. Good luck.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Did not address it head on and went to some seriously unhinged rants yet again. Is your standard for what is allowed something you can conceal carry? Something that can logically be used in home defense?

Did you even read? There is no possible legal use of a nuclear bomb, and it does not even exist as a thing private individuals have

As for the unhinged, it appears to be exactly what you did. After your weird "ok" stalking around, you posted in this thread as #14 that you don't own a gun because you are too lazy to learn how to use one, and thus it wouldn't be safe (which seems to be extremely different from your current stance that a de facto ban for all via a 10,000x tax should be implemented). You then joined again at 277 after I said I wasn't very smart to say "Glad the point was conceded", a little sarcastic shot that I am dumb. Which I am, but it's a little weird that this was the 3rd or 4th thread after you threw a tantrum that I made a joke about PWCC's fraud ring that you've done this kind of thing. I told you in 278 that "your personal obsession is weird", because... well, it is. Then you actually joined the debate, with what appears to be a parody of the actual viewpoints. The documentary record shows that yeah, your weird obsession is what got you here. I assume it's a factor in the subsequent bizarre and contradictory arguments and focus on absurdities like gun-owners possessing nuclear bombs in their homes. So I guess you win in a way, I took you sincerely for awhile. So... congratulations? I hope you find a healthier and happier obsession.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Did you even read? There is no possible legal use of a nuclear bomb, and it does not even exist as a thing private individuals have

As for the unhinged, it appears to be exactly what you did. After your weird "ok" stalking around, you posted in this thread as #14 that you don't own a gun because you are too lazy to learn how to use one, and thus it wouldn't be safe (which seems to be extremely different from your current stance that a de facto ban for all via a 10,000x tax should be implemented). You then joined again at 277 after I said I wasn't very smart to say "Glad the point was conceded", a little sarcastic shot that I am dumb. Which I am, but it's a little weird that this was the 3rd or 4th thread after you threw a tantrum that I made a joke about PWCC's fraud ring that you've done this kind of thing. I told you in 278 that "your personal obsession is weird", because... well, it is. Then you actually joined the debate, with what appears to be a parody of the actual viewpoints. The documentary record shows that yeah, your weird obsession is what got you here. I assume it's a factor in the subsequent bizarre and contradictory arguments and focus on absurdities like gun-owners possessing nuclear bombs in their homes. So I guess you win in a way, I took you sincerely for awhile. So... congratulations? I hope you find a healthier and happier obsession.

Way to answer the simple question. Color me shocked.