Thought experiment: If NEW gun purchases with high capacity clips required insurance, the way autos do, would that effectively price most young males out of the market because of risk? We'd still have plenty of weapons, but mostly owned by the safest demographics. Discuss.
-
-
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That’s the argument! You’re suggesting a constitutional infringement on my rights.
-
No Rights is absolute.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Scott that's not an argument anyone is making.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I was introduced to, and shot my first gun as a 4 year old. Which is why I treat them with respect today. The problem is people who weren’t raised with that respect. People who weren’t raised at all, who are living in chaos, are angry about it, place blame, and seek retribution.
-
Further, someone willing to die doesn’t care about racking up debt. Next idea.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t have to. It’s my god given right. That’s the base line. It’s you who needs to make the argument why tyranny must be advanced because people can’t be responsible parents or the govt can’t enforce laws already on the books.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not establishing sweeping restrictions of possession of products does not mean promoting access to them by toddlers and the insane. Sneaky dichotomy though.
-
Shall not be infringed. Why do you want to limit access to toddlers or felons?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Insane people and ex-cons are human beings and have a right to defend themselves against violent attack same as everyone else. Toddlers are the responsibility of the parents/guardians.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.