(February 21, 2021 at 3:01 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: You haven' t been around long enough..

You do realize that short barreled rifles and shotguns used to be unregulated - as did machine guns?

Those who had them did not get to just keep them...... And those who failed to get them licensed are now criminals......

But go ahead and twist and squirm and tell us that isn't banning guns........


We'll BELIEVE you...

And needing to get a license to carry a firearm is bad why exactly? We require licenses for anyone who wants to get behind the wheel of a car, and that wasn’t designed with the explicit purpose of punching a hole in something at such a speed that it stops being alive (and whether that something is a deer or an enemy soldier or what have you, there’s no getting around the fact that that’s a gun’s entire reason for existing.) So why not a firearm? If actually getting said firearms license was virtually impossible (at least for people who aren’t a danger to themselves or others) you might have a point there, but if that isn’t the case, then what exactly is the problem?

Also, can you find examples of your point that are more recent than the 1930s?

(February 21, 2021 at 4:31 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: And needing to get a license to carry a firearm is bad why exactly?

Dude! When the Cubans invade Montana they'll look up all the licensed gun owners and take their guns! Haven't you see that great historical drama, "Red Dawn"?

(February 21, 2021 at 4:40 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(February 21, 2021 at 4:31 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: And needing to get a license to carry a firearm is bad why exactly?

Dude! When the Cubans invade Montana they'll look up all the licensed gun owners and take their guns! Haven't you see that great historical drama, "Red Dawn"?

WOLVERINES!!!!

(February 21, 2021 at 4:46 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

(February 21, 2021 at 4:40 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Dude! When the Cubans invade Montana they'll look up all the licensed gun owners and take their guns! Haven't you see that great historical drama, "Red Dawn"?

WOLVERINES!!!!

vs. Spetsnaz. If this ever does come to pass a lot of high school kids will be killed playing bad ass AMERICAN!!!

(February 21, 2021 at 4:31 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(February 21, 2021 at 3:01 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: You haven' t been around long enough..

You do realize that short barreled rifles and shotguns used to be unregulated - as did machine guns?

Those who had them did not get to just keep them...... And those who failed to get them licensed are now criminals......

But go ahead and twist and squirm and tell us that isn't banning guns........


We'll BELIEVE you...

And needing to get a license to carry a firearm is bad why exactly? We require licenses for anyone who wants to get behind the wheel of a car, and that wasn’t designed with the explicit purpose of punching a hole in something at such a speed that it stops being alive (and whether that something is a deer or an enemy soldier or what have you, there’s no getting around the fact that that’s a gun’s entire reason for existing.) So why not a firearm? If actually getting said firearms license was virtually impossible (at least for people who aren’t a danger to themselves or others) you might have a point there, but if that isn’t the case, then what exactly is the problem?

Also, can you find examples of your point that are more recent than the 1930s?

The "slight" difference is weapon ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Should you have to have a license to exercise your first ammendment rights?

Gee what a WONDERFUL idea - then we can control what people say!

Doesn't specify any particular firearm.  Womp womp.  "Weapon ownership" my ass.  It doesn't say knives, it doesn't say an axe, it doesn't say a bat.  

If you want to refer to some right that might allow you to put a goddamned vulcan on your truck...it's the 9th implicitly, not the 2nd explicitly.  Not any bit about weapons..a bit about rights not enumerated.  It's a place that reasonable people could actually follow you to - even if they didn't like the idea of you with a tech rolling around Redneckistan.  Provided that you satisfy reasonable criteria applicable to any right, then there should be no reason that you can't have your cannon.  Pay the fees, get the license, register your shit, subject to spot checks, and a ship to shore gun could be yours!

There's nothing that shoots in the us that you can't have if you meet the same reasonable criteria that any other thing and any other right is subject to - and, if we pay you any attention - no reason that you wouldn't qualify for the license.  If you like to out yourself as a violent felon advocating for the personal and unrestricted ownership of tnb artillery - do so now.

Absent that, you and I share a desire to justify the private ownership of a nuke and a harrier - but it's just not in that dead, dead document.  We'd have to lobby for an amendment.  The constitution may guarantee us a right to a shotgun, but that's been tried before.

(February 21, 2021 at 5:18 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Doesn't specify any particular firearm.  Womp womp.  

If you want to refer to some right that might allow you to put a goddamned vulcan on your truck...it's the 9th implicitly, not the 2nd explicitly.  Not any bit about weapons..a bit about rights not enumerated.

It doesn't even specify firearm.

It says "bear arms" i.e. handheld weapons.

So - no nukes. But when phasers become reality - I want one. No cleaning - no moving parts....

(February 21, 2021 at 5:14 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(February 21, 2021 at 4:31 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: And needing to get a license to carry a firearm is bad why exactly? We require licenses for anyone who wants to get behind the wheel of a car, and that wasn’t designed with the explicit purpose of punching a hole in something at such a speed that it stops being alive (and whether that something is a deer or an enemy soldier or what have you, there’s no getting around the fact that that’s a gun’s entire reason for existing.) So why not a firearm? If actually getting said firearms license was virtually impossible (at least for people who aren’t a danger to themselves or others) you might have a point there, but if that isn’t the case, then what exactly is the problem?

Also, can you find examples of your point that are more recent than the 1930s?

The "slight" difference is weapon ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Should you have to have a license to exercise your first ammendment rights?

Gee what a WONDERFUL idea - then we can control what people say!

FFS, speech is regulated too. News stations that use public airwaves have to have broadcasting licensing. I know, I have interned in TV and worked in Radio. I would have gotten fired from the radio station I worked at if I said "fuck" on air.  Cable tv shows like Real Time are regulated differently and don't rely on public airwaves. You can even be fined for not playing station IDs at the legal time required. 

Even if one runs a private media network, it is still a business, and still requires a business license. Regulations are not calls for bans. Just like having health inspectors check a restaurant is not a call to ban selling food. 

You also cannot shout fire in a theatre if there is none.

Quote:The "slight" difference is weapon ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

You also use to be able to own people using that document so maybe don't treat it as gospel 

Quote:Should you have to have a license to exercise your first ammendment rights?

Bit of a difference between talking and the possession of a weapon 

Quote:Gee what a WONDERFUL idea - then we can control what people say!

Again false analogy

(February 21, 2021 at 5:28 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 21, 2021 at 5:14 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: The "slight" difference is weapon ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Should you have to have a license to exercise your first ammendment rights?

Gee what a WONDERFUL idea - then we can control what people say!

FFS, speech is regulated too. News stations that use public airwaves have to have broadcasting licensing. I know, I have interned in TV and worked in Radio. I would have gotten fired from the radio station I worked at if I said "fuck" on air.  Cable tv shows like Real Time are regulated differently and don't rely on public airwaves. You can even be fined for not playing station IDs at the legal time required. 

Even if one runs a private media network, it is still a business, and still requires a business license. Regulations are not calls for bans. Just like having health inspectors check a restaurant is not a call to ban selling food. 

You also cannot shout fire in a theatre if there is none.

The FCC does NOT have a list of words you can't say on the air - numbnuts....  The determination of what can be said is " community standards". They do not regulate or license speech.

And the shouting fire in a theater bit is just fucking stupid. It's simply illegal. Having a license wouldn't make it any different. Were it so - your license to own guns would give you permission to shoot people.

Dumbass