* BREAKING: Reporter and camera man murdered on live TV ! (video)

And what easily attainable goal did you present that does not require new or modified adjustments to this country's gun laws that is NOT a simple rehash of the SOS the NRA and it's flunkies purport? I'll wait. Oh, and PLEASE do something more original than just a version of "I know you are, but what am I?"....because like it or not, the convoluted logic, avoidance and pure baloney you put down is right out of playbook of the conservative punditry I previously mentioned (I highlighted what you avoided in my previous post).

 

So did I miss Obama inviting the parents to the Rose Garden?

 

The sheer stupidity of trying to compare car fatalities on par with mass shootings and the like via guns is only surpassed by the insipid stubbornness of the folk using that screed to avoid the simple fact that this country has better tracking and registration of transport vehicles than weapons.

 

That only compares with the sheer stupidity of not allowing people the tools to defend themselves from predatory criminals.

 

Make guns the size of cars and it would also be pretty simple.

Yeah probably wouldn't be that hard to track a personal howitzer.

 

The "easily attainable goal" I referred to was making transportation safer than it is now (ie. moving poles away from the streets, adding medians to 2-lane highways, etc...). Instead of advocating for those things which are not political minefields and would definitely save lives, you advocate for things that have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented and if implemented may or may not save a single life. It exposes the fact that you aren't concerned about human lives at all, you're concerned with partisan hackery.

That's the third time I've had to explain that very simple point to you, so maybe you should take it easy on denigrating other people's reading comprehension skills? Glass houses and all that.

 

you haven't "explained" anything other than ramble on about car ROAD safety and state federal laws needed for them (as there are periodic law and road changes that do just that).....all well and good, but I have been talking about the FACT that in this country a private owner can sell a gun to someone easier than a car, because BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAW YOU HAVE TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP PAPERS ON THAT CAR. That way, if there's an accident the new owner is responsible, or if the old owner has committed a crime with that car or it has outstanding violations, etc., the new owner will have documentation that it wasn't his fault. NOT SO with a gun. If such registration were done with all weapons sales, criminals would be less likely to take the time and effort to hides their actions (as black market sales would rise, and guns become less available to the general criminal element).

Cars are NOT designed to kill. Guns are expressly designed for that purpose.

Got that now? Because I'm damned tired of your smoke blowing and dodging.

 

Please quote the federal or state law that forbids it's law abiding citizens to purchase a hand gun or hunting rifle or shotgun depending upon local differences? I'll wait.

 

Try moving to New York or Washington DC and buying a gun on the next day. You can get one eventually, but it costs extra and takes time. Good luck if they drag their feet issuing you permission to buy a gun.

You can go to the store and buy a gun in 20 minutes anywhere in TX if you are a law abiding legal resident. I can buy a gun in 5 minutes with my CHL as proof of background check. See the difference?

Here is how to get a gun in New York. Have fun. Hope you don't need a gun tonight.

http://ongov.net/Sheriff/documents/Pistol_Permit_Application.pdf

 

You're wrong, again. In many, if not most/all states, cars can be bought and sold between private individuals without a title. A title is only needed if the owner wishes to register the car with the state in order to utilize it on public roadways (the main purpose of which is revenue generation to pay for those roadways). Also, typing in all-caps doesn't make you any less wrong...

I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here. Are you saying that requiring firearms to be registered in the US would make it harder for criminals to get a gun because of a rise in black market sales? Maybe you can expand on your line of reasoning here.

So what? You keep harping on that but can't elaborate on why it matters. If you invent a children's toy, designed to provide children with enjoyment, that winds up being involved in 30-40,000 deaths every year are you going to going around bleating about how, "Toys are NOT designed to kill," as if that matters in any way, shape, or form?

Some are and some aren't, but again, so what?

Your emotions are completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

So unlike your previous statement, THERE IS NO LAW IN ANY STATE IN THE USA THAT PREVENTS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN FROM OBTAINING A HAND GUN OR A HUNTING RIFLE OR A SHOTGUN.

You want to gripe about state to state restrictions and such, fine. That is another issue. But know this.....guns that show up in crimes in NYC in the last few years are traced to states that have gun laws that are as easy and simplistic as you alluded to in your final statement. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/out-of-state-guns-ny-gun-crimes-article-1.1414139 Nuff said.

 

See above responses.

Oh, and FYI:


Las Vegas Review-Journal Debunks Itself With Contradictory Statements About Background Check Effectiveness

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/09/18/las-vegas-review-journal-debunks-itself-with-co/205646

 

That wasn't my only point. Getting a gun will only provide protection in your home. Do you lose your 2A rights when you leave your house?

And that only matters because law abiding people in places like Washington DC, New York, and Baltimore are unable to defend themselves and deter crime outside of their homes. Their 2A rights have been infringed. Why can't their police protect them?

 

No offense, but if you'd learn how to use the site's quote function correctly, I might continue responding directly to your comments. Not that you'd necessarily care one way or another.

Long story, short: Your proposed federal gun registry has, for all practical purposes, zero chance of becoming law, and there is no evidence that it would "save" lives. You're wasting your time. You should pursue other avenues if saving lives is truly what you're after. If, on the other hand, partisan-hackery is your goal then continue on as before.

 

You couldn't prove your previous statement, so now you put forth yet another NRA propagandist untruth. And newsflash for you, crime can only be lowered, not eliminated in our society. Oh, and here's something else for you to deny/ignore:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1806402/st...tes-with-lax-gun-laws-have-more-gun-violence/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/right-to-carry-laws-crime_n_6160414.html

 

Long story short: Every time I present fact based evidence to disprove your statements and assertions, you just jump to another assertion of your supposition and conjecture as fact. Case in point, here's more proof as how YOUR proposal of deregulation fares:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1806402/st...tes-with-lax-gun-laws-have-more-gun-violence/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/right-to-carry-laws-crime_n_6160414.html

It would be foolish to state that a proposal to better tracking via registration like automobiles would be ineffective, as we see how the opposite of this (the current status quo) fares.

 

By theferret "Bottom line: YOU COULDN'T BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT. But instead of mustering the courage to admit error, now you blow smoke and try to move the goal post. Try reading the 2A without ignoring that little caveat about a well regulated militia and then look at the history of individual states regulating CWP and CCWP. My statement stands valid. "

 

Wait, what? Which of my "statements and assertions" do you think you've disproved? Quote them, verbatim.

I don't recall making any proposals. Which of my, "proposals," do you think are being addressed by your links from the gun-control lobby. Please quote my, "proposals," verbatim, so we can be on the same page.

The current status quo is that the homicide rate in this country has hit historic lows. Do you think that supports your registration argument? If so, how?

 

Here let me present some "facts" to you:

Here's a snippet from your first link:

"Among violent crimes, the most significant increase came in aggravated assault, which may have risen by nearly 33 percent, according to the report. The researchers also found that from 1999 to 2010, murder rates rose in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws. "

This sounds scary until you see this:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

EVERY single catagory listed in your ficticious link is completely false. Every single category has decreased, and continues to decrease every year. There have been no increases in any of them.

Your link is a piece of Bloomberg inspired fiction with no basis in reality.

Your other link references the VPC which is just pure LOL.

 

See folks, when taken to task the people who parrot NRA propaganda cannot sustain a logical and rational debate for long, as they run the danger of conceding a point derived from facts. So instead, they resort to irrational silliness as Texan has done here. Once reduced to that, I have no further incentive to continue placating a stubborn opponent who won't debate with intellectual honesty...and will subsequently ignore Texan.

 

"historic"? Hmmm, depends on where you live.....but God forbid folk like you admit gun control plays a major part in that. Quit stalling, Tommy.

 

Says the guy who doesn't understand English, especially when it is in the Constitution.

 

If you ignore people like him you're going to be talking to yourself pretty soon.

Ignoring people who are right probably is bad for your cause though.

 

You claim to have disproved my, "statements and assertions," yet can't provide a single example....

You claim to have links that prove how my "proposal" fares, yet you can't say what the proposal is to which you refer....

It's pretty clear that you're just talking out of your ass.

And, yes, "historic." As in we've recently seen national murder rates at the lowest they've been in 50+ years...during a time when gun restrictions were actually eased (see Heller, McDonald, shall issue CCW becoming the norm, etc).