NEW BILL WOULD REQUIRE GUN OWNERS TO GET 5 YEAR FEDERAL LICENSE

**gghbi** · September 17th, 2019, 10:27 AM

TB3 See post #77 repeated below.

One last comment: paragraphs are your friend. Wall of text posts tend to be ignored because they are hard to read.

**RenoV8** · September 17th, 2019, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by free

”Common sense” is shorthand for “the way I see it”.

The way I see it, common sense is in short supply...lol

**RenoV8** · September 17th, 2019, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by free

You run into this sort of problem any time you create an arbitrary boundary.

Why can you buy alcohol at 21, but not 20? Why not make it 22?
Why can you vote at 18, but not 17? Why not make it 19?
Why is the age of consent 16, but not 15? Why not make it 17? (for example - I don't know what it is)
Why make SS retirement age 67, but not 66? Why not make it 68? (I know it is 65 for some of you).

Because the boundary is arbitrary, you can't really defend it on these terms. It doesn't make any sense that you can vote at 18, but not 17, and there isn't much reason to pick 18 and not 19. It comes down to you simply had to pick SOMETHING - and enough people who mattered simple agreed that this is what it was going to be. Do people get screwed? Sure they do. But it is the pragmatic solution.

Applying that to this situation....the people who promote the 10-round limit would PREFER guns be banned entirely. But they know they're not going to get that. So they will go as low as they think they can get away with. Combine that and the human affection for numbers ending with a 0, and you end up with a 10 round limit. They don't like it. But they had to pick SOMETHING. And for them, 10 is a lot better than 20 or 30, and they know they were not going to get 0, which is their preferred option.

The numbers might be arbitrary, but the reductions and infringements are a constant...

**free** · September 17th, 2019, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by RenoV8

The numbers might be arbitrary, but the reductions and infringements are a constant...

I disagree. I think they're increasing. Really, that's the function of government - to provide limitations on what you can do.

Note, I said the function, not the role.

**TB3** · September 18th, 2019, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by gghbi

TB3 See post #77 repeated below.

I’ll remember that, thanks teacher

**Banks** · September 18th, 2019, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by RenoV8

The way I see it, common sense is in short supply...lol

Can we get some common sense common sense?

**RockIsland** · September 18th, 2019, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Banks

Can we get some common sense common sense?

I've been calling it uncommon sense for a while now.

**Hodgie** · September 18th, 2019, 03:41 PM

**pa350z** · October 1st, 2019, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by john9001

You need a license to drive because the government says you need a license to drive, all you really need is the skill to drive

How often have we heard that driving is a "privilege" not a "right"! Last I recall, owning a firearm is a "right". The esteemed Senator from the People's Repbulic of NJ fails in his basic analogy of logic!