LogFAQs > #896296334

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	As a truck driver I'm required to pass a physical every 2 yrs (gun control)
Zeus 02/18/18 2:16:52 AM #22:	XlaxJynx007 posted... Grendel Prime posted... SushiSquid posted... It's funny to me that the argument always seems to follow what we see in this topic. One side says we need common-sense gun law reform. The other said says you can't take their guns away, which makes no fucking sense. That's not realistic and it's stupid. Almost nobody is actually arguing taking guns away. Stop with this slippery slope bull shit. You've got cars, planes, chemicals, and all sorts of stuff that's highly regulated. We just made it safer for everyone by making that stuff harder to get. This. Restrictions, background checks, etc =/= the end to your Constitutional rights. Youre still free to pursue the ownership of firearms, theres simply more protections in place. I like the idea of insuring firearms. There will never be a single wholesale solution to gun violence, but we have to do something. Question: What would firearm insurance accomplish? Given that it's a quintessential bad-faith argument, it's basically the equivalent of the jellybean test for voting: It's just a backdoor method of violating a constitutionally protected right which, in all likelihood, would get struck down in a heartbeat by SCOTUS. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:896296334] in As a truck... [t:76322339]...</cite> <quote><cite>XlaxJynx007 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Grendel Prime posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>It's funny to me that the argument always seems to follow what we see in this topic. One side says we need common-sense gun law reform. The other said says you can't take their guns away, which makes no fucking sense. That's not realistic and it's stupid. Almost nobody is actually arguing taking guns away. Stop with this slippery slope bull shit. You've got cars, planes, chemicals, and all sorts of stuff that's highly regulated. We just made it safer for everyone by making that stuff harder to get.</quote> This. Restrictions, background checks, etc =/= the end to your Constitutional rights. Youre still free to pursue the ownership of firearms, theres simply more protections in place. I like the idea of insuring firearms. There will never be a single wholesale solution to gun violence, but we have to do something.</quote> Question: What would firearm insurance accomplish?</quote> Given that it's a quintessential bad-faith argument, it's basically the equivalent of the jellybean test for voting: It's just a backdoor method of violating a constitutionally protected right which, in all likelihood, would get struck down in a heartbeat by SCOTUS. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1