I don’t have an issue with state provided weapons training Wanting them to buy safes isn’t really a function of the government
The question is - are you? And, lets be clear - the bill that creates the registration/licensing will also include the three items I listed.
I am proposing a national training, registration and licensing program, two of the items you mentioned will no longer be necessary and the third would be necessary. So sure Your turn
Licensing and registration: - 50+ state CCW reciprocity - Repeal of state AW bans - Repeal of the NFA 1934, as amended. National training: - Repeal of the Gun Control act of 1968
You still are not answering the question and have now moved on to editing down my posts… You lose. Take care
Indeed. No so. In the post-Bruen word, all 50 states and DC are shall issue. I made mention of all 50 state allowing CC so it is clear the people of those states can do so, so there's no argument someone out s state would have a right the people in the state do not.
With people like you? Absolutely, no compromise with anything ever. Compromise takes two parties working with respect for the process and doing so in good faith. You cannot even make it a few posts without proving unable to do so. So again, you lose. Feel free to have the last word as I would hate to take that from you too.
until people such as him are able to honestly tell us why they wish to infringe on our rights-rather than hiding behind the bullshit facade of public safety, there can be no compromise
I have quite a few guns, I have no desire to see them made illegal. I have a concealed carry permit (although I don’t — my partner does) and semi-regularly go shoot. Good faith requires you to not assume the positions of your opponent unless they have stated otherwise — Something that none of you seem capable of doing. So unless you are talking about general practice you have already failed qualifying yourself.
I have no need to hide why I oppose federal gun control laws or state laws that clearly violate RKBA. I don't have a hidden agenda and I am not inconsistent. Those who want to ban "assault weapons" and claim it is to stop mass shootings but claim they don't want to ban handguns, are dishonest. so are those who claim licensing and registration are designed to impede criminals.
So anyone that disagrees with your position is dishonest? Seems like your point that anyone seeking moderate policy not being able to compromise is only projection. But what more should I expect from y’all?
well if someone claims their main motivation for wanting to prevent me from buying commonly used-for lawful purposes firearms-is to save innocent human life and they aren't trying to ban things that kill far more people, then I call bullshit on their claims. Right now, "assault weapons" WTF that term means-are used for less murders than beatings. So it's really hard to attribute any veracity to those who claim that their desire to ban such rifles is based on saving lives,
Here are my reasons for being skeptical of gun restrictionists' claimed motivations 1) pushing laws that only impact the actions and freedom of those who can legally own guns. Licensing, registration, waiting periods, mandatory insurance or training ONLY applies to people who buy and use guns legally 2) banning any firearm only restricts the rights of honest gun owners. Felons and those engaged in felonious actions are already breaking the law by using, owning, possessing firearms 3) claiming that "assault weapons ought to be banned" when handguns are used in more than 40 times more murders 4) the fact that almost every single gun restrictionist is a left wing advocate further bolsters my claims about the real motivations of gun restrictionists
These are the same people that wanted to hold you down and inject an experimental vaccine into you against your will.
If the government is so incompetent that they can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals now, what laws would change that?
