Gun Control: Democrats Only

[MaC]

Why do you aussies and euros always assumev thatj ust because it exists that the divine state has a god given right to control it?

My concern is nothing to do with the state having control - my conern is that I don't want just anyone having contact with a lethal weapon... call me stupid. 

you are stupid

Ah charming political rhetoric.

Nothing personal, but the opportunity was there and I couldn't pass it up.

Either way, how would you like me to make a case for free ownership of firearms-through reason or empirical data?

[jerusalemcar5]

No.  It has a minimum age requirement, I read no further.

[Wakie]

You know ... if you really want to limit weapons AND do something which supports American business then treat guns like cars.

*You would have to be at least 16 to operate one.

I don't know anywhere in the US where that is not the case.

Actually I don't believe there is a specific age restriction ANYWHERE in the US on operating a firearm.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?
[/quote]

For the same reason you need to pass one to operate a car.  Because untrained, unqualified operators of such items are VERY dangerous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ridiculous and actually just intended to make gun ownership restricted to the elites.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Do only "elites" own cars?

[Smash255]

You know ... if you really want to limit weapons AND do something which supports American business then treat guns like cars.

*You would have to be at least 16 to operate one.
*You would have to pass a test to prove you can safely operate one before being licensed.
*Failure to possess a license while operating one results in hefty fines and/or jail time.
*In order to operate a firearm you must carry insurance for doing so.  You must carry seperate insurance for each weapon and the more dangerous the weapon the heavier the insurance.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Bono]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?

For the same reason you need to pass one to operate a car.  Because untrained, unqualified operators of such items are VERY dangerous.[/quote]
Driving licenses aren't denied arbitrarily because police officers hate cars. And there is no danger of anyone wanting to confiscate cars en masse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ridiculous and actually just intended to make gun ownership restricted to the elites.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Do only "elites" own cars?
[/quote]

Depends on your definition of elite. Anyways, it is ridiculous because insurance doesn't cover voluntary acts anyways

[Wakie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Driving licenses aren't denied arbitrarily because police officers hate cars. And there is no danger of anyone wanting to confiscate cars en masse.
[/quote]

Now you are switching focus.  I never suggested that a firearms license should be denied arbitrarily or that they be confiscated en masse.  I've only suggested that we treat guns like cars because both are potentially dangerous.

Tell me what is wrong with requiring a license in order to operate a firearm?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends on your definition of elite. Anyways, it is ridiculous because insurance doesn't cover voluntary acts anyways
[/quote]

There are 3 ways a firearm can be used.

1. Voluntarily and lawfully (such as in target practice).  Obviously this is not an insurance problem.

2. Voluntarily and criminally (as in robbing someone).  Again, not an insurance problem, but definitely a law enforcement issue.

3. Involuntarily/accidentally (as in a child shooting another child or the Dick Cheney hunting accident).  This type of situation happens a lot and ends up with individuals wanting to sue gun manufacturers.  Insurance will protect the gun manufacturers, reduce court cases, and provide for someone who is harmed in such an accident.

[Bono]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Driving licenses aren't denied arbitrarily because police officers hate cars. And there is no danger of anyone wanting to confiscate cars en masse.

Now you are switching focus.  I never suggested that a firearms license should be denied arbitrarily or that they be confiscated en masse.  I've only suggested that we treat guns like cars because both are potentially dangerous.

Tell me what is wrong with requiring a license in order to operate a firearm?
[/quote]
Fact is, where they are required, they are quite oftne denied arbitrarily. As for confiscation, are you retarded? Licenses allow the government to know who owns guns, thus making confiscation much easier.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends on your definition of elite. Anyways, it is ridiculous because insurance doesn't cover voluntary acts anyways
[/quote]

There are 3 ways a firearm can be used.

1. Voluntarily and lawfully (such as in target practice).  Obviously this is not an insurance problem.

2. Voluntarily and criminally (as in robbing someone).  Again, not an insurance problem, but definitely a law enforcement issue.

3. Involuntarily/accidentally (as in a child shooting another child or the Dick Cheney hunting accident).  This type of situation happens a lot and ends up with individuals wanting to sue gun manufacturers.  Insurance will protect the gun manufacturers, reduce court cases, and provide for someone who is harmed in such an accident.
[/quote]
Insurance does not need to protect gun manufacturers because they should not be liable in the first place, excpet where it's actually their fault. Anyways, I don't see why insurance needs to be mandatory, since this can easily be solved throught the tort process. At best this is an argument for tort reform, which I agree is desperately needed.

[Wakie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Driving licenses aren't denied arbitrarily because police officers hate cars. And there is no danger of anyone wanting to confiscate cars en masse.

Now you are switching focus.  I never suggested that a firearms license should be denied arbitrarily or that they be confiscated en masse.  I've only suggested that we treat guns like cars because both are potentially dangerous.

Tell me what is wrong with requiring a license in order to operate a firearm?

Fact is, where they are required, they are quite oftne denied arbitrarily. As for confiscation, are you retarded? Licenses allow the government to know who owns guns, thus making confiscation much easier.
[/quote]

To make it non-arbitrary you make very concrete black and white items as the yardsticks (THE THERE IS FOR A DRIVER'S LICENSE).  As for confiscation, clearly you must be retarded.  All cars and airplanes require not only licensing but also registration.  WHY THE **** SHOULD FIREARMS BE DIFFERENT!!  I'm not suggesting confiscation!  Besides, you can be licensed and not an owner!  Or you can be an owner and not licensed!  But in order to be an operator you must be licensed!!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It protects manufacturers and operators and victims!  The family of someone accidently shot in a hunting accident would be taken care of by this insurance!  If you are so opposed to insurance then perhaps you should be arguing against requiring driver's to carry it!

[Bono]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Driving licenses aren't denied arbitrarily because police officers hate cars. And there is no danger of anyone wanting to confiscate cars en masse.

Now you are switching focus.  I never suggested that a firearms license should be denied arbitrarily or that they be confiscated en masse.  I've only suggested that we treat guns like cars because both are potentially dangerous.

Tell me what is wrong with requiring a license in order to operate a firearm?

Fact is, where they are required, they are quite oftne denied arbitrarily. As for confiscation, are you retarded? Licenses allow the government to know who owns guns, thus making confiscation much easier.

To make it non-arbitrary you make very concrete black and white items as the yardsticks (THE THERE IS FOR A DRIVER'S LICENSE).  As for confiscation, clearly you must be retarded.  All cars and airplanes require not only licensing but also registration.  WHY THE **** SHOULD FIREARMS BE DIFFERENT!!  I'm not suggesting confiscation!  Besides, you can be licensed and not an owner!  Or you can be an owner and not licensed!  But in order to be an operator you must be licensed!![/quote]
You're not, but plenty of people are, and that would make it mighty easier for them. Anyways, you're sugesting that someone who owned a gun but didn't have a license would have to allow someone to break in her house and murder her just becuase she wasn't legaly authorised to operate it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It protects manufacturers and operators and victims!  The family of someone accidently shot in a hunting accident would be taken care of by this insurance!  If you are so opposed to insurance then perhaps you should be arguing against requiring driver's to carry it!
[/quote]
But I am.

[Wakie]

You're not, but plenty of people are, and that would make it mighty easier for them. Anyways, you're sugesting that someone who owned a gun but didn't have a license would have to allow someone to break in her house and murder her just becuase she wasn't legaly authorised to operate it?

No clearly that isn't what is being implied.  If a pregnant woman goes into labor and the only person available to drive her doesn't have a license to drive that person can still drive her w/o being charged w/ a crime!

And I'm sorry, your argument that licensing gun operation is a step toward gun confiscation is akin to the argument that gun legalization is a step toward personal nuclear weapon legalization.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I am.
[/quote]

Well then we're never going to find middle ground on this point.

[Bono]

You're not, but plenty of people are, and that would make it mighty easier for them. Anyways, you're sugesting that someone who owned a gun but didn't have a license would have to allow someone to break in her house and murder her just becuase she wasn't legaly authorised to operate it?

No clearly that isn't what is being implied.  If a pregnant woman goes into labor and the only person available to drive her doesn't have a license to drive that person can still drive her w/o being charged w/ a crime!

And I'm sorry, your argument that licensing gun operation is a step toward gun confiscation is akin to the argument that gun legalization is a step toward personal nuclear weapon legalization.

The difference is that my argument has been proven true time and again.

[TheresNoMoney]

I, of course, voted no. I do not agree with any of those three suggestions.

In personal matters, I am very much libertarian-leaning.

[Wakie]

You're not, but plenty of people are, and that would make it mighty easier for them. Anyways, you're sugesting that someone who owned a gun but didn't have a license would have to allow someone to break in her house and murder her just becuase she wasn't legaly authorised to operate it?

No clearly that isn't what is being implied.  If a pregnant woman goes into labor and the only person available to drive her doesn't have a license to drive that person can still drive her w/o being charged w/ a crime!

And I'm sorry, your argument that licensing gun operation is a step toward gun confiscation is akin to the argument that gun legalization is a step toward personal nuclear weapon legalization.

The difference is that my argument has been proven true time and again.

No.  No one has ever tried to confiscate all guns.  Your argument is full of crap.

[Bono]

You're not, but plenty of people are, and that would make it mighty easier for them. Anyways, you're sugesting that someone who owned a gun but didn't have a license would have to allow someone to break in her house and murder her just becuase she wasn't legaly authorised to operate it?

No clearly that isn't what is being implied.  If a pregnant woman goes into labor and the only person available to drive her doesn't have a license to drive that person can still drive her w/o being charged w/ a crime!

And I'm sorry, your argument that licensing gun operation is a step toward gun confiscation is akin to the argument that gun legalization is a step toward personal nuclear weapon legalization.

The difference is that my argument has been proven true time and again.

No.  No one has ever tried to confiscate all guns.  Your argument is full of crap.

Obviously, you think America is the world.

[Wakie]

You're not, but plenty of people are, and that would make it mighty easier for them. Anyways, you're sugesting that someone who owned a gun but didn't have a license would have to allow someone to break in her house and murder her just becuase she wasn't legaly authorised to operate it?

No clearly that isn't what is being implied.  If a pregnant woman goes into labor and the only person available to drive her doesn't have a license to drive that person can still drive her w/o being charged w/ a crime!

And I'm sorry, your argument that licensing gun operation is a step toward gun confiscation is akin to the argument that gun legalization is a step toward personal nuclear weapon legalization.

The difference is that my argument has been proven true time and again.

No.  No one has ever tried to confiscate all guns.  Your argument is full of crap.

Obviously, you think America is the world.

No, but we are discussing America and American policy here.