People do accept a higher level of enforcement and monitoring with regards to driving, but why if more enforcement, regulation, and monitoring of guns is proposed, the alarm is sounded and now the dictatorial government is on its way to banning guns?
I think it's because the gun lobby has watched the demise of the tobacco lobby over the last several decades.
I used to be able to buy a pack of smokes from a vending machine while waiting in line for my food at Dairy Queen when I was a kid. Now I can get a citation if I light up a smoke within 20 feet of the same Dairy Queen.
The gun lobby is fighting to avoid what would the first chink in the armor that could lead to their eventual downfall and loss of power. They are very zealous and powerful ... thus you can hear the crickets in the White House whenever there is a shooting.
DS...you've clearly got a point in all this (starting the thread with an unproven assumption, suggesting reasons etc), which is fine. But just say it already. You think people who want to ban guns want to do so because X, Y, or Z, and you obviously think there's something faulty with that OR there's some other point you want to make. Again, that's all fine and good, but just spit it out already. What are you trying to get at!
I'm just waiting for someone to ultimately give me the reason they feel why legal owned guns should be banned and if that ever happened what they feel will be the result?
the reason you are not getting what you are looking for is because no-one wants to ban guns. we just want more restrictions.
Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon. Why isn't there a call when someone kills someone while drinking and driving? Maybe instead of a simple 20 question test to get a license we should have a family background check. I mean it is a known fact that children born from a family with alcohol abuse tend to have alcohol abuse themselves. Perhaps a background check should be performed on everyone before someone can drive a car? I mean this about saving lives correct?
I don't see the point, I guess. I've never owned a gun, never fired a gun, don't hunt, and never felt unsafe, whether I was living in the suburbs or the city. Plus I listened to a lot of PJ and 311 growing up.
Haha, Guns Are for Pussies!
I had a girl (friend) once who thought the song was a tribute to female genitalia...she thought the lyric was "Guns off for pussies". As in, fire your guns in the air if you like 'em. She was a riot.
I don't want to ban guns but I sure want to restrict access. Each day I encounter my fellow citizens in passing by and I wouldn't trust the majority to safely operate a wiffle ball bat, less yet a handgun.
Testing and training need to be prerequisites to owning a handgun. Assault rifles should be banned from the general public. And high-capacity clips should be banned as well. In my opinion.
Hmm, interesting. Jason P, I never woulda guessed.
Also, "wiffle"? That can't be how you spell that, can it? Looks downright unAmerican spelled like that.
I don't want to ban guns but I sure want to restrict access. Each day I encounter my fellow citizens in passing by and I wouldn't trust the majority to safely operate a wiffle ball bat, less yet a handgun.
Testing and training need to be prerequisites to owning a handgun. Assault rifles should be banned from the general public. And high-capacity clips should be banned as well. In my opinion.
This X100000000000
Cant even be discussed though because the ignoramouses bring out the straw man
Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon.
No they arent. Again, I can get online right now and buy a big fucking gun with no checks. And if waiting periods were just a little longer, you run the chance of exposing a person who is fucked in the head like Laughner, the AZ shooter, in the meantime. Also, if magazine capacities were a bit less, that gives people time to defend themselves. Laughner was apparently tackled by bystandards after he shot off 30+ rounds. A few short years ago, those magazines were limited to 12 or something I believe. There are some small things that could be changed that would hardly affect the average gun owner, and just might prevent some from being victims.
the way I see it personally, it cant hurt to do these small things. If people are too fucking stubborn and selfish (or fearful) to compromise a bit, then I think we are just simply doomed.
DS...you've clearly got a point in all this (starting the thread with an unproven assumption, suggesting reasons etc), which is fine. But just say it already. You think people who want to ban guns want to do so because X, Y, or Z, and you obviously think there's something faulty with that OR there's some other point you want to make. Again, that's all fine and good, but just spit it out already. What are you trying to get at!
I'm just waiting for someone to ultimately give me the reason they feel why legal owned guns should be banned and if that ever happened what they feel will be the result?
the reason you are not getting what you are looking for is because no-one wants to ban guns. we just want more restrictions.
Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon. Why isn't there a call when someone kills someone while drinking and driving? Maybe instead of a simple 20 question test to get a license we should have a family background check. I mean it is a known fact that children born from a family with alcohol abuse tend to have alcohol abuse themselves. Perhaps a background check should be performed on everyone before someone can drive a car? I mean this about saving lives correct?[/quote]
I agree that we should feel outraged at people who drink and drive and hurt someone. Look what just happened this weekend with the cowboy player who was drunk and killed someone. that story was in all the news. I don't know about where you live but in Ontario Canada we have put major restrictions on drivers. if your a new driver you can't have any alcohol in your system. None at all no matter how old you are.
we have lower the speed limit, hell if your caught drunk driving the person serving you drinks can be fined for getting you drunk.
can you name me one restriction that anyone has placed on guns?
Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon.
No they arent. Again, I can get online right now and buy a big fucking gun with no checks. And if waiting periods were just a little longer, you run the chance of exposing a person who is fucked in the head like Laughner, the AZ shooter, in the meantime. Also, if magazine capacities were a bit less, that gives people time to defend themselves. Laughner was apparently tackled by bystandards after he shot off 30+ rounds. A few short years ago, those magazines were limited to 12 or something I believe. There are some small things that could be changed that would hardly affect the average gun owner, and just might prevent some from being victims.
the way I see it personally, it cant hurt to do these small things. If people are too fucking stubborn and selfish (or fearful) to compromise a bit, then I think we are just simply doomed.
You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?
Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon.
No they arent. Again, I can get online right now and buy a big fucking gun with no checks. And if waiting periods were just a little longer, you run the chance of exposing a person who is fucked in the head like Laughner, the AZ shooter, in the meantime. Also, if magazine capacities were a bit less, that gives people time to defend themselves. Laughner was apparently tackled by bystandards after he shot off 30+ rounds. A few short years ago, those magazines were limited to 12 or something I believe. There are some small things that could be changed that would hardly affect the average gun owner, and just might prevent some from being victims.
the way I see it personally, it cant hurt to do these small things. If people are too fucking stubborn and selfish (or fearful) to compromise a bit, then I think we are just simply doomed.
You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?
you do realize that it might be harder for an 8 year old to hide that car unlike a gun which surprise surprise can be more hidden.
I don't know if guns should be banned or not, so I can't really answer the thread. But as a criminal prosecutor, I see on a daily basis: (1) lots of shitheads who commit crimes both violent and non-violent, and (2) lots of non-shitheads who commit crimes both violent and non-violent.
So it comes down to whether I believe "guns kill or harm people" or "people kill or harm people." And the answer I found is, well, both. Trust - from a policy standpoint is critical. Whether we trust the average person (good, bad, smart, dumb, lawful owner, drug user, priest etc) to use their guns responsibly, especially knowing that virtually everyone, at some point, makes an ill-advised decision. With 200,000,000 privately owned guns in America (most of them stockpiled in basements in Montana I presume), it's only a matter of time before the wrong person makes an emotional, irrational decision and does so with a gun. That's not semantics, policy, or politics; that's probability.
Is government supposed to trust everyone with a gun, and hope they always do the right thing? Of course not, because that's clearly not working. And government can't obviously predict who will and will not commit crime with a gun (think: how many times do you hear a person who commits a gun crime as "quiet, unassuming, polite" etc?). But government can play the odds and reduce the likelihood that when someone commits a crime or violent act, they have a gun available to them. I don't know if that means we outlaw guns. I don't know if that means we regulate only certain guns. I don't know if that means we arm everyone. I truly don't have an answer. But if we can't get to the bottom of this issue policy-wise (which we can't and won't), let's look at it mathematically. More available guns in circulation increases the likelihood that when someone makes a bad, dangerous, reckless, impulsive, emotional decision, they will have a gun available to them. Less available guns then means...well, you decide.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
People do accept a higher level of enforcement and monitoring with regards to driving, but why if more enforcement, regulation, and monitoring of guns is proposed, the alarm is sounded and now the dictatorial government is on its way to banning guns?
Because there is absolutely zero slippery slope application to driving "rights". No one anywhere expects anyone to try and ban cars. On the other hand, it's a fairly viable assumption that while most anti-firearm folks say they don't want to ban firearms, they would be pretty happy if guns happened to get banned anyhow. Yes, you can mindlessly apply slippery slope to just about any argument, but the above adds weight to its application in this case.
For clarity's sake, I'm for stronger restrictions on obtaining firearms. I am not for banning assualt rifles. I'm anti-grenade. Thank you.
This thread isn't really going the way I intended. I would really like to hear people's ultimate motivations for banning guns.
I am not into banning all guns, i just want to make them very hard to get. I think we have seen that there needs to be tougher rules for people to get them.
I hear that guns are dangerous, and kids can get hurt.
Maybe the real motive is to ban guns so they can become easier to buy on the blackmarket?
:?
What are people's motivation to use pepper spray so freely? :corn:
I agree that we should feel outraged at people who drink and drive and hurt someone. Look what just happened this weekend with the cowboy player who was drunk and killed someone. that story was in all the news. I don't know about where you live but in Ontario Canada we have put major restrictions on drivers. if your a new driver you can't have any alcohol in your system. None at all no matter how old you are.
we have lower the speed limit, hell if your caught drunk driving the person serving you drinks can be fined for getting you drunk.
can you name me one restriction that anyone has placed on guns?
There's a boatload of them. Just google gun ownership restrictions and there you go.
Do you support a family history and/or background check to obtain a driver's license?
Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon.
No they arent. Again, I can get online right now and buy a big fucking gun with no checks. And if waiting periods were just a little longer, you run the chance of exposing a person who is fucked in the head like Laughner, the AZ shooter, in the meantime. Also, if magazine capacities were a bit less, that gives people time to defend themselves. Laughner was apparently tackled by bystandards after he shot off 30+ rounds. A few short years ago, those magazines were limited to 12 or something I believe. There are some small things that could be changed that would hardly affect the average gun owner, and just might prevent some from being victims.
the way I see it personally, it cant hurt to do these small things. If people are too fucking stubborn and selfish (or fearful) to compromise a bit, then I think we are just simply doomed.
You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?
I dont care. All the silly analogies to just take the focus off of the real problem in question... So you disagree with a simple measure such as limiting magazine capacities (as they were limited just a few years ago in AZ)??
I don't know if guns should be banned or not, so I can't really answer the thread. But as a criminal prosecutor, I see on a daily basis: (1) lots of shitheads who commit crimes both violent and non-violent, and (2) lots of non-shitheads who commit crimes both violent and non-violent.
So it comes down to whether I believe "guns kill or harm people" or "people kill or harm people." And the answer I found is, well, both. Trust - from a policy standpoint is critical. Whether we trust the average person (good, bad, smart, dumb, lawful owner, drug user, priest etc) to use their guns responsibly, especially knowing that virtually everyone, at some point, makes an ill-advised decision. With 200,000,000 privately owned guns in America (most of them stockpiled in basements in Montana I presume), it's only a matter of time before the wrong person makes an emotional, irrational decision and does so with a gun. That's not semantics, policy, or politics; that's probability.
Is government supposed to trust everyone with a gun, and hope they always do the right thing? Of course not, because that's clearly not working. And government can't obviously predict who will and will not commit crime with a gun (think: how many times do you hear a person who commits a gun crime as "quiet, unassuming, polite" etc?). But government can play the odds and reduce the likelihood that when someone commits a crime or violent act, they have a gun available to them. I don't know if that means we outlaw guns. I don't know if that means we regulate only certain guns. I don't know if that means we arm everyone. I truly don't have an answer. But if we can't get to the bottom of this issue policy-wise (which we can't and won't), let's look at it mathematically. More available guns in circulation increases the likelihood that when someone makes a bad, dangerous, reckless, impulsive, emotional decision, they will have a gun available to them. Less available guns then means...well, you decide.
See what I mean? Even the guy who "isn't sure what to do about guns" came to the ban conclusion within about 250 words. This is why pro-2nd amendment folks fear the ban, even when the conversation is on regulation/restriction.
You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?
...
Really? Where?
I thought you could not enter into a contract with a minor... and that the minimum driving age was 14.5 in montana or something.
You don't have to be of legal driving age to own a car. Hell, you don't even need a license to drive a car...it's illegal but only if you're caught. And yes, being in the auto industry, if an 8 year old walks into my dealership and has the means to purchase a vehicle from me he can purchase it. No different than selling the kid a candy bar.
I dont care. All the silly analogies to just take the focus off of the real problem in question... So you disagree with a simple measure such as limiting magazine capacities (as they were limited just a few years ago in AZ)??
Why isn't there a limit on the size of a package of cigarettes?
Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon. Why isn't there a call when someone kills someone while drinking and driving? Maybe instead of a simple 20 question test to get a license we should have a family background check. I mean it is a known fact that children born from a family with alcohol abuse tend to have alcohol abuse themselves. Perhaps a background check should be performed on everyone before someone can drive a car? I mean this about saving lives correct?
I would support this very idea for driver's licensing and gun licensing, and I'm not kidding either. Comprehensive licensing we can call it. You make a good point - let's regulate the hell out of driving, and gun owning. Both are dangerous instruments (cars/DLs and guns), which, if used at the wrong moment, can kill quickly and catastrophically.
The comparison is fair: if we're going to regulate guns more, we should regulate driving privileges more. The argument the other way - we don't regulate driving privileges, so we shouldn't also regulate guns more - doesn't work though.
Good point DS.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
See what I mean? Even the guy who "isn't sure what to do about guns" came to the ban conclusion within about 250 words. This is why pro-2nd amendment folks fear the ban, even when the conversation is on regulation/restriction.
Aw shit...I don't want to be a "guy" around here.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I dont care. All the silly analogies to just take the focus off of the real problem in question... So you disagree with a simple measure such as limiting magazine capacities (as they were limited just a few years ago in AZ)??
Why isn't there a limit on the size of a package of cigarettes?
:fp:
So I see you refuse to answer my questions. Nevermind, I forgot you clearly have an agenda and you wont see anything from another perspective.
Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon. Why isn't there a call when someone kills someone while drinking and driving? Maybe instead of a simple 20 question test to get a license we should have a family background check. I mean it is a known fact that children born from a family with alcohol abuse tend to have alcohol abuse themselves. Perhaps a background check should be performed on everyone before someone can drive a car? I mean this about saving lives correct?
I would support this very idea for driver's licensing and gun licensing, and I'm not kidding either. Comprehensive licensing we can call it. You make a good point - let's regulate the hell out of driving, and gun owning. Both are dangerous instruments (cars/DLs and guns), which, if used at the wrong moment, can kill quickly and catastrophically.
The comparison is fair: if we're going to regulate guns more, we should regulate driving privileges more. The argument the other way - we don't regulate driving privileges, so we shouldn't also regulate guns more - doesn't work though.
Good point DS.
Since the cal for the ban on guns or over regualtng if you will, is all about saving lives lets do alcohol too. Instead of just hitting a certain age lets do background checks on everyone to see if they have a history of alcohol abuse in their family. If they do we don't allow them to purchase alcohol. Imagine how many lives could be saved. Again this is all about saving lives correct?
I dont care. All the silly analogies to just take the focus off of the real problem in question... So you disagree with a simple measure such as limiting magazine capacities (as they were limited just a few years ago in AZ)??
Why isn't there a limit on the size of a package of cigarettes?
:fp:
So I see you refuse to answer my questions. Nevermind, I forgot you clearly have an agenda and you wont see anything from another perspective.
To answer your questions no I don't agree with limiting magazine capacities.
See what I mean? Even the guy who "isn't sure what to do about guns" came to the ban conclusion within about 250 words. This is why pro-2nd amendment folks fear the ban, even when the conversation is on regulation/restriction.
Since the cal for the ban on guns or over regualtng if you will, is all about saving lives lets do alcohol too. Instead of just hitting a certain age lets do background checks on everyone to see if they have a history of alcohol abuse in their family. If they do we don't allow them to purchase alcohol. Imagine how many lives could be saved. Again this is all about saving lives correct?
You can't give us something that is chemically addictive and then take it away from us. We crave it and will find ways to get it.
I don't know for sure, but I don't think guns are chemically addictive.
Comments
I used to be able to buy a pack of smokes from a vending machine while waiting in line for my food at Dairy Queen when I was a kid. Now I can get a citation if I light up a smoke within 20 feet of the same Dairy Queen.
The gun lobby is fighting to avoid what would the first chink in the armor that could lead to their eventual downfall and loss of power. They are very zealous and powerful ... thus you can hear the crickets in the White House whenever there is a shooting.
Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon. Why isn't there a call when someone kills someone while drinking and driving? Maybe instead of a simple 20 question test to get a license we should have a family background check. I mean it is a known fact that children born from a family with alcohol abuse tend to have alcohol abuse themselves. Perhaps a background check should be performed on everyone before someone can drive a car? I mean this about saving lives correct?
I had a girl (friend) once who thought the song was a tribute to female genitalia...she thought the lyric was "Guns off for pussies". As in, fire your guns in the air if you like 'em. She was a riot.
Also, "wiffle"? That can't be how you spell that, can it? Looks downright unAmerican spelled like that.
...well, fuck me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiffle_ball
This X100000000000
Cant even be discussed though because the ignoramouses bring out the straw man
No they arent. Again, I can get online right now and buy a big fucking gun with no checks. And if waiting periods were just a little longer, you run the chance of exposing a person who is fucked in the head like Laughner, the AZ shooter, in the meantime. Also, if magazine capacities were a bit less, that gives people time to defend themselves. Laughner was apparently tackled by bystandards after he shot off 30+ rounds. A few short years ago, those magazines were limited to 12 or something I believe. There are some small things that could be changed that would hardly affect the average gun owner, and just might prevent some from being victims.
the way I see it personally, it cant hurt to do these small things. If people are too fucking stubborn and selfish (or fearful) to compromise a bit, then I think we are just simply doomed.
Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon. Why isn't there a call when someone kills someone while drinking and driving? Maybe instead of a simple 20 question test to get a license we should have a family background check. I mean it is a known fact that children born from a family with alcohol abuse tend to have alcohol abuse themselves. Perhaps a background check should be performed on everyone before someone can drive a car? I mean this about saving lives correct?[/quote]
I agree that we should feel outraged at people who drink and drive and hurt someone. Look what just happened this weekend with the cowboy player who was drunk and killed someone. that story was in all the news. I don't know about where you live but in Ontario Canada we have put major restrictions on drivers. if your a new driver you can't have any alcohol in your system. None at all no matter how old you are.
we have lower the speed limit, hell if your caught drunk driving the person serving you drinks can be fined for getting you drunk.
can you name me one restriction that anyone has placed on guns?
You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?
you do realize that it might be harder for an 8 year old to hide that car unlike a gun which surprise surprise can be more hidden.
So it comes down to whether I believe "guns kill or harm people" or "people kill or harm people." And the answer I found is, well, both. Trust - from a policy standpoint is critical. Whether we trust the average person (good, bad, smart, dumb, lawful owner, drug user, priest etc) to use their guns responsibly, especially knowing that virtually everyone, at some point, makes an ill-advised decision. With 200,000,000 privately owned guns in America (most of them stockpiled in basements in Montana I presume), it's only a matter of time before the wrong person makes an emotional, irrational decision and does so with a gun. That's not semantics, policy, or politics; that's probability.
Is government supposed to trust everyone with a gun, and hope they always do the right thing? Of course not, because that's clearly not working. And government can't obviously predict who will and will not commit crime with a gun (think: how many times do you hear a person who commits a gun crime as "quiet, unassuming, polite" etc?). But government can play the odds and reduce the likelihood that when someone commits a crime or violent act, they have a gun available to them. I don't know if that means we outlaw guns. I don't know if that means we regulate only certain guns. I don't know if that means we arm everyone. I truly don't have an answer. But if we can't get to the bottom of this issue policy-wise (which we can't and won't), let's look at it mathematically. More available guns in circulation increases the likelihood that when someone makes a bad, dangerous, reckless, impulsive, emotional decision, they will have a gun available to them. Less available guns then means...well, you decide.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
For clarity's sake, I'm for stronger restrictions on obtaining firearms. I am not for banning assualt rifles. I'm anti-grenade. Thank you.
Really? Where?
I thought you could not enter into a contract with a minor... and that the minimum driving age was 14.5 in montana or something.
Hail, Hail!!!
I hear that guns are dangerous, and kids can get hurt.
Maybe the real motive is to ban guns so they can become easier to buy on the blackmarket?
:?
What are people's motivation to use pepper spray so freely? :corn:
There's a boatload of them. Just google gun ownership restrictions and there you go.
Do you support a family history and/or background check to obtain a driver's license?
Gun = killing device
You don't have to be of legal driving age to own a car. Hell, you don't even need a license to drive a car...it's illegal but only if you're caught. And yes, being in the auto industry, if an 8 year old walks into my dealership and has the means to purchase a vehicle from me he can purchase it. No different than selling the kid a candy bar.
Why isn't there a limit on the size of a package of cigarettes?
I would support this very idea for driver's licensing and gun licensing, and I'm not kidding either. Comprehensive licensing we can call it. You make a good point - let's regulate the hell out of driving, and gun owning. Both are dangerous instruments (cars/DLs and guns), which, if used at the wrong moment, can kill quickly and catastrophically.
The comparison is fair: if we're going to regulate guns more, we should regulate driving privileges more. The argument the other way - we don't regulate driving privileges, so we shouldn't also regulate guns more - doesn't work though.
Good point DS.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Cigarette = killing device
Car = transportation device and killing device
Gun = killing device and protection device
Aw shit...I don't want to be a "guy" around here.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
:fp:
So I see you refuse to answer my questions. Nevermind, I forgot you clearly have an agenda and you wont see anything from another perspective.
Since the cal for the ban on guns or over regualtng if you will, is all about saving lives lets do alcohol too. Instead of just hitting a certain age lets do background checks on everyone to see if they have a history of alcohol abuse in their family. If they do we don't allow them to purchase alcohol. Imagine how many lives could be saved. Again this is all about saving lives correct?
To answer your questions no I don't agree with limiting magazine capacities.
ass (of out)
u (and)
me
Mostly me though. haha.
Sorry charlie!
I don't know for sure, but I don't think guns are chemically addictive.