Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

yes some cars are banned. but they are few and far between... England bans the most common type of firearm owned in free countries. they also ban themes common form of rifles owned in the USA.

 

Again, your comment shows you have no knowledge of the points I made. Immediately, when I said British civil war, all my other points are directly related to this.

But it still doesn't answer why the brain of an American can only hear "Ban" when "Regulation" is mentioned, but only about guns.

 

I will try to put this in more simple terms for you. If you could institute (ie impose) every law you wanted to upon the USA-what would those laws be concerning firearms

 

And that's why Americans talk stupid about the UK and guns. If you don't watch it, the stupid comments will continue.

 

why are you so concerned about American laws? I don't spend anytime on British chat boards whining about your silly gun laws

 

how many Americans are on British boards vs British who talk stupid about our gun laws and the USA?

 

It's about safety and don't worry, societies have moved on since 1776. If you're still stuck in the musket days, there lies your problem.

 

That's your problem I have American relatives, most of the colonies were British descendants. You use English as your language, and the British weights and measures, as opposed to the European metric system.

Still doesn't answer why Americans can't comprehend Regulations.

 

you totally ignored his point. He correctly noted that no nation saw its violent crime rate drop (or public safety level increase) after gun restrictions or bans were passed.

 

Ever since we gave Britain the boot-with force of arms-I stopped carrying about England having any relevance to our rights

 

Maybe if I write it this way, you'll understand:

WE DON'T GIVE A SINGLE FLYING F HOW YOU DO THINGS ON YOUR SIDE OF THE POND. WE FOUGHT AND WON A WAR FOR A REASON, AND AMONG THEM WERE THE CROWN'S INSISTANCE ON CONFISCATING CIVILIAN FIREARMS.

MIND YOUR BUSINESS, KNOW YOUR ROLE, AND STAY IN YOUR LANE!

 

Because sentences are spread out you can't read that way what's wrong with you?

 

Safe gun laws. Those that are safe to use a gun, enjoy guns. They created their background, so no need to worry about gun use. Those that have unsavoury backgrounds have in the past, the ones that contribute to most problems. You keep them out of the public domain, and you keep them secure when not in use to reduce theft and siblings blasting the **** out of their brother/sister/mother/father.

If Dave deliberately ran over someone, would you want him to hold a licence to drive a rocket powered car on the road? Nope. Two things. A rocket powered car is unsuitable for roads, thus doesn't meet road vehicle specification. Plus, Dave was in control of his actions that made him unsuitable to use a car.

Would you want someone guilty of domestic abuse owning an AR 15? No on both counts because an AR 15 is like a rocket car, unsuitable, and a domestic abuser is too dangerous to have deadly weapons.

 

That's a gun nut problem, they hate foreigners because they school you on guns, they beat you in debates, they show you how flawed your argument is. But you can't debate guns, you just have to default to the 10 gun nut commandments.

 

You didn't. The colonies were getting defeated, the French stepped in to save your butts. Do you want schooled anymore because the American education system failed you on basic American history. I can post you a statue of a French general that's in Paris if you want. I took the photo on holiday, it mentions how they saved your arse. America has never won a war on its own in it's life.

 

They want you to read a snippet of your post that you already know what you posted. Then another snippet, then another. And between each snippet, tolerate a pile of crap because they couldn't be bothered to absorb some info or a quick YouTube video. Just wastes my time.

 

So? What's the difference between reading five sentences when they're all together or if I sentences separated out?

It is the same amount of reading.

On what world does it waste any time it takes the same amount of time if you separate sentences out in two groups it's the same amount of sentences the same amount of letters.

I'm not going to stop because you whine about it.

If you don't want to read them don't read them you don't have to respond either but if you respond I'm going to continue to point out that it's the same amount of reading that you have to do to get the message.

Your complaint makes absolutely no kind of sense.

 

I got a suggestion for you since you need things all crammed up and do one group of words don't make multiple points in a post and people won't have to do that.

 

We don't use the metric system for a simple reason all of our stuff wasn't destroyed in world war II. So you're working on equipment or measuring stuff out fractions of a meter or fractions of a centimeter or fractions of a millimeter depending on what kind of work you're doing is much more difficult than just a nice round number in feet or inches.

Also we comprehend regulations we just don't need our government to be our mommy.

 

So you simply ignore an answer to your question, yet bleat constantly that no one will answer?

Had you ever considered your problem might be self inflicted?

 

You asked why people considered it a binary solution set. I explained, in great detail.
You explained how you stopped reading after the 4th word.

Spare me your protests.

 

Bearable arms is what the constitutional concept encompasses.
Ergo: CAN YOU PICK IT UP.
Your obsession with interspecies erotica not withstanding.

 

"
The statutory guidance also sets out other areas the police should review before granting a licence – including examining an applicant’s social media, financial history, interviewing associates, or checking with domestic violence or public protection units. The importance of this is stressed in cases where the police consider that more evidence is needed before authorising a licence.

Background checks which can be conducted by the police are already extensive, spanning everything from criminal convictions and previous run-ins with the law, to evidence of domestic turmoil, unmanaged debt or even dishonesty.

Existing laws also require a home visit by the police for first-time applicants, to ensure they have utmost confidence in an individual’s suitability to own a gun with no risk to public. Two credible referees for a firearm and one for a shotgun must be provided before a licence can be issued."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uks-strict-gun-laws-strengthened-with-new-medical-arrangements

A red flag will be found on literally everyone with that amount of investigation. Anyone whose able to pass all that either got lucky with lazy investigators or has friends in the govt.

In the US, the average citizen breaks several federal laws on a daily basis, its just that no one finds out because no individual actually knows all 80,000 pages of federal law. Until they're actually investigated by the feds, of course and teams if lawyers pick through life to find all the violations someone didnt know they were committing. You can't honestly believe that people arent commonly persecuted in your system to an extent similar to 'i dont like this guy/gal so we'll keep 'investgating' their background til we find what we want.' Which will be possible with literally anyone in the modern age of metadata. This system is designed from the ground up for 'good ol boys club' style cronyism where people who know people are granted the permits and people who don't get bunk.

Seriously... unmanaged debt, domestic turmoil and 'dishonesty' online? Thats pretty much everyone to some degree.

 

No

 

Should or shouldn't be, that's one of many that's infringed.
Ever try to buy a LAW? Grenade launcher? Infringed.