This is what the gun control law should be in the US.

Of course they do -- that's why our right to own and use them is protected by the constitution.

 

Why do you refuse to understand 'due process'?

 

2/3 of these people chose to die.
For every remaining person, a firearm was used at least 8 times in self-defense - that is, at least 4,000,000 times.
Why do you think you have a point here?

 

Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

You better have your crayons and play-doh handy.

 

I see you are fully ignorant of all the processes involved.

 

Only as much as yours

 

You clearly have zero comprehension of how rights work.

Individual rights are yours - as an individual - upon the moment of your birth. Yes, you have the choice - as an individual - whether you wish to exercise said rights or not; but you do NOT have the right to impose blanket bans upon others exercising those rights. If a bunch of individuals wish to congregate together - in a home, a church, or - as proposed - in a city, for the purpose of separating themselves from others, they can certainly do so. BUT.... should circumstances require another person who does not believe in not exercising their rights to interact with your commune of hoplophobes - for business, or the simple matter of passing through - you do not have any authority to strip that individual of their rights without their consent.

 

What a load of crap.

Sorry, if I've lived an honorable life, serving my community and country as a jurist without the faintest whiff of scandal or accusations of malfeasance, vetted at multiple levels.... and suddenly I'm accused of the vilest, most outlandish things by people with an obvious agenda, accusations that are nothing but smears and slander that I know will follow me the rest of my life regardless of the validity of said accusations, I'm going to react with righteous outrage and indignation as well.

Those who choose to perpetuate these slanders prove themselves to be just as devoid of integrity or character as those who originally leveled them.

 

That right there wins the prize for most ludicrous, self-serving statement of the week.

The frauds are those who attacked a decent man and dragged him through the mud without justification for purely political reasons.

 

Actually if it's privately owned and clearly defined the visitor would be held to the same rules. Unless they can prove they have a real reason to need it. Only person armed I think not.

 

That is, the visitor -voluntarily- disarms himself, in choosing to go on said private property.
Big whoop - that exists now.

 

Or they are met by an officer and told to disarm or get out or go to the local jail.

 

I roll my eyes hard enough to hurt when I see phrases like "people are woke!" What a load of crap.

Sorry, the Dems are more likely to get their backsides handed to them with each passing day, and their self-righteous, self-serving, arrogant behavior is going to be why.

 

Again, you are a totalitarian without the first inkling of understanding in what rights are.

 

Yes - he voluntarily disarms himself or chooses to not enter the property.
If one of your "officers" apprehends him and locks him up for entering the property while armed, he can be charged with kidnapping - and is likely to get shot.

 

He's a well-educated, highly-intelligent man of the world, and thus, believes he is smart enough judge what rights people need and what rights they do not.

 

I think I just pulled an eye muscle, they rolled so hard.....

https://i.gifer.com/6k4w.gif

 

Ask him - he'll tell you.

 

yeah that is going to happen. But thanks for admitting that "gun banners" generally are leftwing Trump haters. Gun banners are almost never motivated by a true understanding of gun issues or an honest belief that their gun ban cravings will decrease crime. Rather, they hate the politics of gun owners and push gun control to punish those people

 

I really can't find a lot wrong with this.

Notice: No guns are banned in this plan

 

Single issue pro gun people generally are far right wing ideologues. They are almost always motivated by politics rather than an understanding of gun issues. They have an inherent hate of reason and compromise.

 

Well, in different threads to try to judge the ability to compromise, we have seen little difference in willingness to compromise on either side of the gun debate. The anti-gun folks are always unwilling to give us more gun freedom in some areas in exchange for more gun control in other areas. Compromise means that both sides give in. I would be willing to go along with universal background checks for all gun sales (except between blood relatives) in exchange for CCW permits being valid in all 50 states, for example.

 

Certainly some of the anti crowd is that way, but not all by a long shot. Pun intended. I think had the NRA handled their end differently at the beginning, 1980s, we wouldn't have the current schism.

 

Only if CCW is federally regulated and registered.