JOHN KERRY CLAIMS ARMS TRADE TREATY WILL NOT “DIMINISH FREEDOM”

A gun is an instrument or tool
A car is a instrument or tool.
Both can and have killed. Dead is dead, no matter how you slice it. Originally Posted by rioseco

Your analogy is totally ridiculous. As LL pointed out, the primary purpose of a car is to get people from one location to another. The primary purpose of a gun is to protect oneself by either killing, wounding, or scaring off someone else.

And we have very specific laws when it comes to driving a car. Now I might not be 100% correct but every state I know of:

1. Requires a driver's license to operate a car. And in order to obtain said driver's license a person:
- Must reach a minimum age, an age at which the person is believed to be able to operate the vehicle correctly
- Must pass a written test showing he/she understands the rules of the road
- Must pass a driver's test showing he/she is a competent driver
2. The car must be insured in case of an accident.
3. In many, if not most states, the car must undergo an annual inspection, paid for by
the owner of the car.
4. The car must be registered, again paid for by the owner of the car.

So since both handguns and cars can kill, shouldn't we have the same requirements for handguns as we do for cars? Your analogy.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Well, I wasted 3 minutes and 9 seconds watching that rather insipid video.

None of anything you've said or posted has answered my 3 very basic questions. I really can't understand your reluctance to do so. Show us you have a pair and if you truly believe that a 5-year old has the right to walk into my home with a fully loaded glock or M-16 tell us so.

Is there something wrong with limiting gun ownership to people who are at an age when they can, for the most part, make educated decisions in using a handgun?

Is there something wrong with allowing individuals to not allow handguns or other similar weapons in their homes/establishments, for whatever reason? If you feel unsafe by not being allowed to carry your weapon into such homes/establishments, you are free to stay out. Just as I am free to stay out of those homes/establishments where handguns are present.

Is there something wrong with wanting people who carry handguns into public areas to have shown a minimum level of competency with the weapon and know when they are legally allowed to use it and when they can't use it?

Your analogy is totally ridiculous. As LL pointed out, the primary purpose of a car is to get people from one location to another. The primary purpose of a gun is to protect oneself by either killing, wounding, or scaring off someone else.

And we have very specific laws when it comes to driving a car. Now I might not be 100% correct but every state I know of:

1. Requires a driver's license to operate a car. And in order to obtain said driver's license a person:
- Must reach a minimum age, an age at which the person is believed to be able to operate the vehicle correctly
- Must pass a written test showing he/she understands the rules of the road
- Must pass a driver's test showing he/she is a competent driver
2. The car must be insured in case of an accident.
3. In many, if not most states, the car must undergo an annual inspection, paid for by
the owner of the car.
4. The car must be registered, again paid for by the owner of the car.

So since both handguns and cars can kill, shouldn't we have the same requirements for handguns as we do for cars? Your analogy. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No the anology is not ridiculous.
Being as cars are not intended to kill, makes it even more relevant.
When a machine or tool intended for innocent use contributes to more deaths than all firearms then you have something worth noting. Laws have not stopped these deaths have they ? Lets outlaw bank robbery, oh wait it is already illegal but continues to happen does it not ??? How manny muggers, rapist use only brute force or knife ? Too damn many, agreed even one is too many !
Again it does not matter if the instrument of death is a car,bat,brick,hammer or gun. Dead is dead, at the hands of a person with the use of an object. That cannot be argued reasonably.

I never stated to be against checking people out to insure they are knowledeable,sane,responsible and mature enough to own or carry a firearm. Yes there are surely people who should not own or carry, most noteably felons, thugs, children and disturbed individuals.

All this considered, no government intity be it domestic or foreign has the right to further restrict weapons to a free citizenry. We will not have it.
Good day.

All this considered, no government intity be it domestic or foreign has the right to further restrict weapons to a free citizenry. We will not have it.
Good day. Originally Posted by rioseco

If you think an analogy comparing automobile deaths and handgun deaths is valid I'm no longer going to argue against it. Not worth my time.

Assuming you mean "entity" instead of "intity", you are 100% incorrect. You may not like it at all but the 50 states have pretty much been delegated the right to enact gun control legislation as they see fit. SCOTUS decisions have supported that right. Some states have tightened gun control in recent years and others have loosened it. If "you will not have it" and happen to live in a state that "further restricts weapons" your options are to try to elect officials whose POV concerning gun control is more is more in line with your POV. Or you can move to another state. Or you can move to another country.

You don't get it, do you?

(OK, now you'll say that you DO get it and say something rude.)

Well if you analogy makes so much sense, why don't you stick a car in your waistband the next time you have to "borrow" money or a carton of Newports from the 7-11.

Then you'll only need a firearm for family gatherings.

Get it, now, rio?

(or, of course, you can seek help...)

If you think an analogy comparing automobile deaths and handgun deaths is valid I'm no longer going to argue against it. Not worth my time.

Assuming you mean "entity" instead of "intity", you are 100% incorrect. You may not like it at all but the 50 states have pretty much been delegated the right to enact gun control legislation as they see fit. SCOTUS decisions have supported that right. Some states have tightened gun control in recent years and others have loosened it. If "you will not have it" and happen to live in a state that "further restricts weapons" your options are to try to elect officials whose POV concerning gun control is more is more in line with your POV. Or you can move to another state. Or you can move to another country. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

As for the first part, I regret that you can not accept the fact that dead is dead but if you withdraw then...........Ok.
Yes on "entity" thankyou, I am a terrible typist.
Yes on electing officials.
No on another country, we will stay and defend the great concept of a free one right here !
Have a great week, SpeedRacer. Tell Chim-chim hello.

Yes on electing officials.
No on another country, we will stay and defend the great concept of a free one right here !
Have a great week, SpeedRacer. Tell Chim-chim hello. Originally Posted by rioseco

Congratulations on deciding to stay in the greatest nation in the world despite what I'm sure you (and Iffy) believe are laws that are in your opinion violations of your 2nd Amendment rights.

America is the greatest country on Earth... Especially when viewed from the surface.

America is the greatest country on Earth... Especially when viewed from the surface. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What does that mean?