Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Requiring Training Before Owning A Gun is a Threat To The Second Amendment
Comments
-
It is, just a not very bright adult.NorthwestFresh said:
There is zero chance this is an adult. None.TheKobeStopper said:
Are you implying gun owners are too stupid to take a training course?EsophagealFeces said:
Requiring training, licenses, or anything else in an infringement of the 2nd amendment. Requiring ID to vote is not an infringement of the 14th amendment. Unless you’re implying that people of color don’t know how to get IDs.TheKobeStopper said:
Should be easy to answer then.EsophagealFeces said:
Is this a serious question? Fuck, you’re dense.TheKobeStopper said:Could someone explain to me the difference between requiring an ID to vote and requiring training to own a gun?
That’s your interpretation of it. I would say it depends on if you’re required to take training or pass training. If it’s just taking training I don’t see that as an infringement and certainly not more of one than requiring ID to vote. -
Both are racist so they are the sameTheKobeStopper said:Could someone explain to me the difference between requiring an ID to vote and requiring training to own a gun?
-
Dude, you still have it.RaceBannon said:
Both are racist so they are the sameTheKobeStopper said:Could someone explain to me the difference between requiring an ID to vote and requiring training to own a gun?
-
I think they should automatically give concealed carry licenses when they get their driver's license.
-
Now I'm mad I didn't come up with this.LebamDawg said:I think they should automatically give concealed carry licenses when they get their driver's license.
-
That’s a great question. So I think the language used is important. When we talk about voting rights it’s “abridge”, to curtail a right or privilege. I view these requirements as exactly that, you are depriving someone of their right to vote if you require ID.SFGbob said:
We already have requirements for gun ownership my strawman ass fucking friend. But that doesn't mean that I'd support an unconstitutional requirement.TheKobeStopper said:
Great so we can set requirements for gun ownership and you don’t object. Not sure what this thread is about then.SFGbob said:
Are you under some delusion that there are currently no requirements to purchase a gun Kobe? Yes Kobe, I'm "conceding" the facts that are already on the ground. You got me.TheKobeStopper said:
Ok, so you are conceding that we can set requirements for purchasing a gun.SFGbob said:
Gosh are you required to show ID before purchasing a gun?EsophagealFeces said:
Requiring training, licenses, or anything else in an infringement of the 2nd amendment. Requiring ID to vote is not an infringement of the 14th amendment. Unless you’re implying that people of color don’t know how to get IDs.TheKobeStopper said:
Should be easy to answer then.EsophagealFeces said:
Is this a serious question? Fuck, you’re dense.TheKobeStopper said:Could someone explain to me the difference between requiring an ID to vote and requiring training to own a gun?
If you'd stop trying to come off as clever Kobe, you'd stop sounding like such a fucking moron. We have requirements for voting does that mean you wouldn't object to a poll tax or literacy test for voting Kobe?
Why not? We already have requirements for voting.
With the 2nd amendment though, we use “infringe” or to limit. I would not view requiring training as limiting unless you needed to pass a training class. Just having to take one does not limit you from owning a gun. -
How you view something is irrelevant. I care about facts, your opinion or how you "feel" about something is worthless and of no interest. No one is deprived of the right to vote by requiring an ID especially in states that will provide anyone who asks with a free ID. You would never make that same argument regarding gun ownership thus revealing that your position isn't principled but merely political.TheKobeStopper said:
That’s a great question. So I think the language used is important. When we talk about voting rights it’s “abridge”, to curtail a right or privilege. I view these requirements as exactly that, you are depriving someone of their right to vote if you require ID.SFGbob said:
We already have requirements for gun ownership my strawman ass fucking friend. But that doesn't mean that I'd support an unconstitutional requirement.TheKobeStopper said:
Great so we can set requirements for gun ownership and you don’t object. Not sure what this thread is about then.SFGbob said:
Are you under some delusion that there are currently no requirements to purchase a gun Kobe? Yes Kobe, I'm "conceding" the facts that are already on the ground. You got me.TheKobeStopper said:
Ok, so you are conceding that we can set requirements for purchasing a gun.SFGbob said:
Gosh are you required to show ID before purchasing a gun?EsophagealFeces said:
Requiring training, licenses, or anything else in an infringement of the 2nd amendment. Requiring ID to vote is not an infringement of the 14th amendment. Unless you’re implying that people of color don’t know how to get IDs.TheKobeStopper said:
Should be easy to answer then.EsophagealFeces said:
Is this a serious question? Fuck, you’re dense.TheKobeStopper said:Could someone explain to me the difference between requiring an ID to vote and requiring training to own a gun?
If you'd stop trying to come off as clever Kobe, you'd stop sounding like such a fucking moron. We have requirements for voting does that mean you wouldn't object to a poll tax or literacy test for voting Kobe?
Why not? We already have requirements for voting.
With the 2nd amendment though, we use “infringe” or to limit. I would not view requiring training as limiting unless you needed to pass a training class. Just having to take one does not limit you from owning a gun. -
I don't see a problem with having to take a gun training course in theory, if, yeah, you aren't held to some ridiculous standard and are just informed to not prevent your dumbass from shooting yourself on accident.TheKobeStopper said:
Are you implying gun owners are too stupid to take a training course?EsophagealFeces said:
Requiring training, licenses, or anything else in an infringement of the 2nd amendment. Requiring ID to vote is not an infringement of the 14th amendment. Unless you’re implying that people of color don’t know how to get IDs.TheKobeStopper said:
Should be easy to answer then.EsophagealFeces said:
Is this a serious question? Fuck, you’re dense.TheKobeStopper said:Could someone explain to me the difference between requiring an ID to vote and requiring training to own a gun?
That’s your interpretation of it. I would say it depends on if you’re required to take training or pass training. If it’s just taking training I don’t see that as an infringement and certainly not more of one than requiring ID to vote.
But in practice it's going to be some exorbitant, overtaxed bullshit that is going to piss off both the consumer and the company trying to make money off of issuing the training. It's going to make the process take way longer than it should, which I guess is the point, right?
Which will encourage more people to black market a gun or get one from a relative which defeats the purpose. -
I don’t really like “well then people will just break the law” arguments but I think the rest is fair. I would need to see pretty significant evidence that this would have a meaningful positive impact to support it. More than “if it saves one life”.haie said:
I don't see a problem with having to take a gun training course in theory, if, yeah, you aren't held to some ridiculous standard and are just informed to not prevent your dumbass from shooting yourself on accident.TheKobeStopper said:
Are you implying gun owners are too stupid to take a training course?EsophagealFeces said:
Requiring training, licenses, or anything else in an infringement of the 2nd amendment. Requiring ID to vote is not an infringement of the 14th amendment. Unless you’re implying that people of color don’t know how to get IDs.TheKobeStopper said:
Should be easy to answer then.EsophagealFeces said:
Is this a serious question? Fuck, you’re dense.TheKobeStopper said:Could someone explain to me the difference between requiring an ID to vote and requiring training to own a gun?
That’s your interpretation of it. I would say it depends on if you’re required to take training or pass training. If it’s just taking training I don’t see that as an infringement and certainly not more of one than requiring ID to vote.
But in practice it's going to be some exorbitant, overtaxed bullshit that is going to piss off both the consumer and the company trying to make money off of issuing the training. It's going to make the process take way longer than it should, which I guess is the point, right?
Which will encourage more people to black market a gun or get one from a relative which defeats the purpose. -
Illegal guns will be yet another category that black people lead in due to whitey holding them back and being too stupid to pass a training course. Right?haie said:
I don't see a problem with having to take a gun training course in theory, if, yeah, you aren't held to some ridiculous standard and are just informed to not prevent your dumbass from shooting yourself on accident.TheKobeStopper said:
Are you implying gun owners are too stupid to take a training course?EsophagealFeces said:
Requiring training, licenses, or anything else in an infringement of the 2nd amendment. Requiring ID to vote is not an infringement of the 14th amendment. Unless you’re implying that people of color don’t know how to get IDs.TheKobeStopper said:
Should be easy to answer then.EsophagealFeces said:
Is this a serious question? Fuck, you’re dense.TheKobeStopper said:Could someone explain to me the difference between requiring an ID to vote and requiring training to own a gun?
That’s your interpretation of it. I would say it depends on if you’re required to take training or pass training. If it’s just taking training I don’t see that as an infringement and certainly not more of one than requiring ID to vote.
But in practice it's going to be some exorbitant, overtaxed bullshit that is going to piss off both the consumer and the company trying to make money off of issuing the training. It's going to make the process take way longer than it should, which I guess is the point, right?
Which will encourage more people to black market a gun or get one from a relative which defeats the purpose.
