Do the gun grabbers ever go against their narrative?

[Markemp]

But to imply that the divisiveness is mostly one sided is farcical.

I'm not implying it's one sided. In fact, I was quite clear that it happens from people to the left of me. It's wrong no matter who does it.

You want to make owning a gun be an older set point responsibility? Ok. The biologic basis is that the juvenile mind is not developed enough for that right… ok.

So they should not drive (kills more than guns…), vote, be liable for the draft, sign contracts, own real property, etc.

If you want to make an argument that guns should require licenses to own/operate a lot like cars, I'm willing to have that discussion. But before it would get my support, hopefully we can get a national carry law passed and remove suppressors from the NFA. Seems like a pretty big giveaway to the gun regulations people otherwise.

Maybe owning a gun should have insurance requirements like owning a car? I'm listening. That may be a great free market way of solving gun violence. I don't think voting, the draft, contract law or owning property has nearly the number of injuries or death a year as firearms do, so I feel like the existing regulations there are doing a good job as is.

[rtk]

Pink pony?

[Jackpine Savage]

Maybe owning a gun should have insurance requirements like owning a car? I'm listening. That may be a great free market way of solving gun violence.

You honestly think criminals will refrain from gun violence because they can't get insurance?

[xd ED]

But to imply that the divisiveness is mostly one sided is farcical.

I'm not implying it's one sided. In fact, I was quite clear that it happens from people to the left of me. It's wrong no matter who does it.

You want to make owning a gun be an older set point responsibility? Ok. The biologic basis is that the juvenile mind is not developed enough for that right… ok.

So they should not drive (kills more than guns…), vote, be liable for the draft, sign contracts, own real property, etc.

If you want to make an argument that guns should require licenses to own/operate a lot like cars, I'm willing to have that discussion. But before it would get my support, hopefully we can get a national carry law passed and remove suppressors from the NFA. Seems like a pretty big giveaway to the gun regulations people otherwise.

Maybe owning a gun should have insurance requirements like owning a car? I'm listening. That may be a great free market way of solving gun violence. I don't think voting, the draft, contract law or owning property has nearly the number of injuries or death a year as firearms do, so I feel like the existing regulations there are doing a good job as is.

There are no insurance requirements to own a car.

You used regulations, and free market in the same breathe.
Your trolling is not well thought out.

[xd ED]

Pink pony?

I considered that. But If it is, he's only bringing his 'C', or 'D' game.

[Holland&Holland]

Fair enough. That said, as you stated there are people in your party who do want to end the private ownership of guns. I firmly believe that there are many more freedoms that they want to take away as well. You state that this site with, I dunno, maybe 20 regular posters is divisive. What do you and your friends do to not be divisive? If one were to look at what occurs at the state government level, or the liberal city government level??? You don't see that as divisive? And that is were our lives are being effected each and every day.

So hear it is, you can keep kicking the dog, eventually it will bite you. Is the dog divisive? I suppose but who made it that way?

Ooof.. that is a lot of questions.

I disagree with some of my friends and family all the time, but we generally do it without the name calling. Those who want to take away my semi-autos don't call me fascist, and I don't call them communists. I don't think they are trying to take away my freedoms. We just have different ideas on what reasonable regulations entail. Putting people into "us vs them" buckets doesn't allow for any nuance in a discussion. There are probably a bunch of topics we agree 100% on, like the decline in quality of fast food, the misuse of the word "literally" by millennials, or the general uselessness of a 1911, especially when compared to a proper handgun like a Glock 19. But if you disagree with me on the benefits of subsidies for electric vehicles, it doesn't make me a communist, just like your support for subsidies for oil exploration and ranching on public lands doesn't make you a Nazi*. Some of my friends do talk like that, and I push back on them when they do. It doesn't help. In fact it's outright harmful.

There are people who benefit from us calling each other names and trying to boil everything down to black and white. To put everyone into a bucket. They generally aren't Americans and don't have America's best interest in mind when they do that. When the end result is an attempt to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States, it's a huge problem. And the divisiveness is the problem. Let people vote and respect the outcomes.

For example, you say that "they" want to "take away freedoms." Are they? YesCan you give some examples of the freedoms they want to take away? my ownership of firearms, my very way of life, and my belief system Do you think I'm trying to take your freedoms away? Absolutely

* Please note that I have no idea what your positions are on any of these topics, and am just using general right vs left fund-raising points. Unless you actually like 1911s, in which case I yield, as there is no accounting for taste sometimes.

Did I call you a name? I must have missed that.

Now I have been called a fascist, a racist, and a Nazi by others just for simply owning AR-15s. I appreciate you correcting that behavior. We need to speak in generalities because, I don't know you, you don't know me. So all we really have is 2 sides of an issue here. It would seem that I believe there are more with extremist views on one side of the issue than you do. That doesn't make my belief invalid. I am just not willing to see which one of us is correct. I will answer your questions. See above.

As you can see from my answers, we have much ground to make up if we do not want to be divisive. Maybe you can see where I come from and why I am done with any form of compromise on this issue. Or maybe you see me as a crazy old gun nut. Your choice, it really doesn't bother me all that much.

[Holland&Holland]

But to imply that the divisiveness is mostly one sided is farcical.

I'm not implying it's one sided. In fact, I was quite clear that it happens from people to the left of me. It's wrong no matter who does it.

You want to make owning a gun be an older set point responsibility? Ok. The biologic basis is that the juvenile mind is not developed enough for that right… ok.

So they should not drive (kills more than guns…), vote, be liable for the draft, sign contracts, own real property, etc.

If you want to make an argument that guns should require licenses to own/operate a lot like cars, I'm willing to have that discussion. But before it would get my support, hopefully we can get a national carry law passed and remove suppressors from the NFA. Seems like a pretty big giveaway to the gun regulations people otherwise.

Maybe owning a gun should have insurance requirements like owning a car? I'm listening. That may be a great free market way of solving gun violence. I don't think voting, the draft, contract law or owning property has nearly the number of injuries or death a year as firearms do, so I feel like the existing regulations there are doing a good job as is.

Voting absolutely causes more deaths than firearms.