Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[2aguy]

Then you have two charges: Murder and robbery. But the suspect will not be charged with being in possession of a firearm under disability. The death penalty either way.

Then your gun add-on wasn't needed anyway, was it?

This is my plan....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a gun in a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background chec

You support gun control.

Wow..... you are an idiot.

I support criminal control....

 

[2aguy]

And you also don't hold Budweiser responsible for the idiot who drowns after he says hold my beer do you?

Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.

The gun industry is the opposite of that.

Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.

You are an idiot. You are a dumb shit......

Essentially, you want the beer maker sued if the guy buying the beer drives his car into a school.........

That is what you want for gun makers and gun stores....you doofus.

 

[2aguy]

In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy. Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives. Why? Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched. They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the NRA.

Except no one in NYC has a good opinion of Guiliani or Bloomberg today because of this racist policy.

Stop and Frisk is some poor fool getting shot 54 times because he reached for a cell phone.

While some murders are planned, most are just reactionary out of anger. I see it here all the time. Two guys get into a verbal argument at a bar, they both go outside to fight, and one of them pulls a gun and shoots the other one. I'm sure it goes on in Chicago ten-fold. Now, if these people didn't have a gun, they would have fought, one man wins and the other man loses, and that's the extent of the violence.

Wow, Ray. This is exactly my point. Most people shouldn't own guns.

First of all, half those are suicides so do not at all count in any way.

Uh, they count to the people who care about them.

I knew a lady whose teenage son killed himself with that gun she bought for protection. My nextdoor neighbor killed himself. Um, yeah, they do count

A lot of people who know you kill themselves......try to be less boring, they might be less likely to shoot themselves to escape being around you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.

The gun industry is the opposite of that.

Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.

How does the gun industry do the opposite of that? You don't see billboards about guns, you don't get flyers in the mail, they don't run television or radio commercials, and the only time you see guns even advertised is if you subscribe to a hunting or gun magazine. Maybe if you bought a gun somewhere, the gun shop will send you solicitations.

I don't watch commercials anymore, but how does Budweiser promote responsible drinking? At the end of the commercial they say "Drink responsibly." Big deal Two seconds out of a 30 second commercial.

The only time a bar can get sued is if they knew the patron was drunk. A gun shop has no idea of ill intent by a customer. They run his name through a federal background check and it's either permitted to sell that customer a weapon or it isn't.

 

[2aguy]

Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.

The gun industry is the opposite of that.

Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.

How does the gun industry do the opposite of that? You don't see billboards about guns, you don't get flyers in the mail, they don't run television or radio commercials, and the only time you see guns even advertised is if you subscribe to a hunting or gun magazine. Maybe if you bought a gun somewhere, the gun shop will send you solicitations.

I don't watch commercials anymore, but how does Budweiser promote responsible drinking? At the end of the commercial they say "Drink responsibly." Big deal Two seconds out of a 30 second commercial.

The only time a bar can get sued is if they knew the patron was drunk. A gun shop has no idea of ill intent by a customer. They run his name through a federal background check and it's either permitted to sell that customer a weapon or it isn't.

They run his name through a federal background check and it's either permitted to sell that customer a weapon or it isn't.


Let's explain that so even joe might........might be able to understand...

This means...joe, that according to your own god.....Government......the individual in the background check has committed no crime that would prevent them from owning a gun..... your god, Government, says they are okay to own that weapon.

Who am I kidding....joe is a moron...he doesn't understand or care about truth, facts or reality.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except no one in NYC has a good opinion of Guiliani or Bloomberg today because of this racist policy.

Stop and Frisk is some poor fool getting shot 54 times because he reached for a cell phone.

So who got shot 54 times during a stop and frisk incident in NYC? How is it a racist policy when it saved black lives? They didn't like the policy and had it stopped. Afterwards more black people got killed. Smart move, but we all know the lack of logic when it comes to the left.

The point is that it worked. I know you don't like that, but the results are the results.

Wow, Ray. This is exactly my point. Most people shouldn't own guns.

They broke the law. What more do you want? In our state you cannot carry a concealed firearm unless you go through class and get a license for it. Whether it's concealed or open carry, you cannot touch a drop of alcohol while carrying. It's likely people who do shit like that are ex-cons anyhow, and you cannot be in possession of a firearm if you were a convicted felon.

Most people shouldn't own guns when it's a tiny, tiny fraction of people who break the law? Now you see why we don't want people with your mentality in charge of anything in our country?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They run his name through a federal background check and it's either permitted to sell that customer a weapon or it isn't.


Let's explain that so even joe might........might be able to understand...

This means...joe, that according to your own god.....Government......the individual in the background check has committed no crime that would prevent them from owning a gun..... your god, Government, says they are okay to own that weapon.

Who am I kidding....joe is a moron...he doesn't understand or care about truth, facts or reality.

Joe loves to use apples to oranges comparisons. I guess it's because he knows he loses the debate with an actual apples to apples comparison.

You compared the manufacture of beer and the manufacturer of weapons. Losing the debate, he switches it to a manufacturer of weapons and somebody knowingly serving a drunk at a bar. Why? Because he knows how stupid it would be if a parent could sue Microsoft computers if their child was targeted by a child molester over the internet.

 

[Blues Man]

And you also don't hold Budweiser responsible for the idiot who drowns after he says hold my beer do you?

Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.

The gun industry is the opposite of that.

Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.

The gun industry does nothing to promote crime or murder.

And a bar is NOT a manufacturer. You should want people to be able to sue Jack Daniels if a person gets drunk and crashes into a bridge abutment then you should want to sue Ford for not putting breathalyzer lock outs on all their cars.

Because of course the person who downed a bottle of JD isn't responsible for anything.

 

[woodwork201]

Wow..... you are an idiot.

I support criminal control....

Is preventing someone from owning guns an infringement on their right to keep and bear arms?

You're a gun controller as surely as is David Chipman. The only difference between him and you is the amount of gun control you want to see.

 

[woodwork201]

In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy. Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives. Why? Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched. They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the NRA.

Except no one in NYC has a good opinion of Guiliani or Bloomberg today because of this racist policy.

Stop and Frisk is some poor fool getting shot 54 times because he reached for a cell phone.

While some murders are planned, most are just reactionary out of anger. I see it here all the time. Two guys get into a verbal argument at a bar, they both go outside to fight, and one of them pulls a gun and shoots the other one. I'm sure it goes on in Chicago ten-fold. Now, if these people didn't have a gun, they would have fought, one man wins and the other man loses, and that's the extent of the violence.

Wow, Ray. This is exactly my point. Most people shouldn't own guns.

First of all, half those are suicides so do not at all count in any way.

Uh, they count to the people who care about them.

I knew a lady whose teenage son killed himself with that gun she bought for protection. My nextdoor neighbor killed himself. Um, yeah, they do count

I know three people who committed suicide - one was my brother suffering from PTSD after 3 tours in Vietnam. None of the three used a gun. One used pills, one hung himself, and the third used car exhaust. People who use a gun for suicide just choose it because it's convenient. Those who don't have convenient access to a gun choose other means.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I know three people who committed suicide - one was my brother suffering from PTSD after 3 tours in Vietnam. None of the three used a gun. One used pills, one hung himself, and the third used car exhaust. People who use a gun for suicide just choose it because it's convenient. Those who don't have convenient access to a gun choose other means.

It's why in CA, they installed safety nets around the Golden Gate bridge. They had people jumping off of it left and right.

 

[woodwork201]

Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.

The gun industry is the opposite of that.

Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.

If a bar knowingly serves a drunk that doesn't have a ride, they should get sued. If a gun shop sells a gun to someone standing at the counter saying their next stop with the new gun was going to be an elementary school, then the gun shop could, and should, be sued.

But there's a big difference between the bar and the gun shop. The gun shop never, ever, ever, makes the decision alone on whether a purchaser is a threat to society. In every single gun sale from any gun shop in the United States, it is the FBI that makes the claim that the person buying the gun is not known to be a threat to society. So, if you want to sue someone, sue the FBI.

 

[woodwork201]

I know three people who committed suicide - one was my brother suffering from PTSD after 3 tours in Vietnam. None of the three used a gun. One used pills, one hung himself, and the third used car exhaust. People who use a gun for suicide just choose it because it's convenient. Those who don't have convenient access to a gun choose other means.

It's why in CA, they installed safety nets around the Golden Gate bridge. They had people jumping off of it left and right.

Really? That almost sounds fun - if I didn't have such a fear of heights. Don't tell my son; he'd probably head there in a minute just to try it.

 

[woodwork201]

In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy. Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives. Why? Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched. They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the NRA.

Except no one in NYC has a good opinion of Guiliani or Bloomberg today because of this racist policy.

Stop and Frisk is some poor fool getting shot 54 times because he reached for a cell phone.

While some murders are planned, most are just reactionary out of anger. I see it here all the time. Two guys get into a verbal argument at a bar, they both go outside to fight, and one of them pulls a gun and shoots the other one. I'm sure it goes on in Chicago ten-fold. Now, if these people didn't have a gun, they would have fought, one man wins and the other man loses, and that's the extent of the violence.

Wow, Ray. This is exactly my point. Most people shouldn't own guns.

First of all, half those are suicides so do not at all count in any way.

Uh, they count to the people who care about them.

I knew a lady whose teenage son killed himself with that gun she bought for protection. My nextdoor neighbor killed himself. Um, yeah, they do count

I agree about stop-and-frisk; it's clearly unconstitutional, as are Terry stops. Now some self-proclaimed constitutionalist will jump in to tell me about Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, claiming that the Supreme Court rulings make it constitutional and will completely fail to make the same statement about any anti-gun ruling that the Supreme Court makes... Leave the Court out of it; we all know that the Founders would be spinning in their graves over those policies.

You're right, though, with enough government intervention into our lives crime could be reduced. For instance, Myanmar has a pretty totalitarian form of government and they've succeeded in getting their murder rate all the way down to half of what ours is. See, that's the problem with gun control and people control: separately or together, they can't stop all crime. And crime is the price of liberty: our country is more dangerous than is Myanmar - well, except for the danger of an authoritarian government.

But we accept the danger over loss of liberty. And when you start talking about just how unnecessarily dangerous the United States is, try to understand that the solution is not surrendering our liberty; it's appropriate punishment of criminals that will make us safer; quit releasing violent criminals back into society.

 

[woodwork201]

They broke the law. What more do you want? In our state you cannot carry a concealed firearm unless you go through class and get a license for it. Whether it's concealed or open carry, you cannot touch a drop of alcohol while carrying. It's likely people who do shit like that are ex-cons anyhow, and you cannot be in possession of a firearm if you were a convicted felon.

Most people shouldn't own guns when it's a tiny, tiny fraction of people who break the law? Now you see why we don't want people with your mentality in charge of anything in our country?

You and Joe seem to agree more than you disagree. You think that anyone who has ever committed a crime should not be allowed to own a gun and Joe thinks anyone who might commit a crime should not be allowed to own a gun. Hardly a hair's difference between you. And you also seem OK with getting permission and mandatory training in order to exercise a basic human, constitutionally protected, right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You and Joe seem to agree more than you disagree. You think that anyone who has ever committed a crime should not be allowed to own a gun and Joe thinks anyone who might commit a crime should not be allowed to own a gun. Hardly a hair's difference between you. And you also seem OK with getting permission and mandatory training in order to exercise a basic human, constitutionally protected, right.

No, Joe and I are not on the same page of anything. Joe wants to disarm society including law abiding citizens. I want to disarm people who have a much higher potential to misuse the firearm and have proven themselves to be a criminal element.

Every person knows the penalties of committing a crime. You get arrested, spend time in prison, likely won't be able to find a job when you get out, lose your right to vote and to possess a firearm.

Now if you are legal to own a firearm, then yes, I want to see people trained and licensed before they take that gun out into the street. I used to go to the range all the time when I was younger. Several times you had some kids there that were acting like idiots. One pair two booths from us shot a hole into the ceiling, and were laughing like hell. We moved down to the furthest booth from them.

There are some people not responsible enough to carry a firearm in the street. Those people will not spare the expense and time to get a license, and that's the way I want to keep it. If they do, at least there's a chance they will switch their thought process and realize guns are not toys. They can kill people.

 

[Winston]

Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.

The gun industry is the opposite of that.

Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.

How does the gun industry do the opposite of that? You don't see billboards about guns, you don't get flyers in the mail, they don't run television or radio commercials, and the only time you see guns even advertised is if you subscribe to a hunting or gun magazine. Maybe if you bought a gun somewhere, the gun shop will send you solicitations.

I don't watch commercials anymore, but how does Budweiser promote responsible drinking? At the end of the commercial they say "Drink responsibly." Big deal Two seconds out of a 30 second commercial.

The only time a bar can get sued is if they knew the patron was drunk. A gun shop has no idea of ill intent by a customer. They run his name through a federal background check and it's either permitted to sell that customer a weapon or it isn't.

I believe you are letting the gun shop owner off easy. And the government certainly does. You are correct, a bar can be found liable if they sell alcohol to someone that is drunk and that someone has an accident and kills someone. They don't get to say, we looked at his ID and he was old enough to buy it, so we sold it to him.

That is essentially what you are saying, and the government agrees with you, that if the gun shop runs the background check and it comes up clear, they can sell the gun. So if some dude with crazy ass eyes, reeking of body odor and disheveled clothes, comes storming in and demanding a gun, like right now, while muttering under his breath audibly, "I am going to get that SOB, if he passes the background check, sell him the gun. Are you starting to see the difference here?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.

The gun industry is the opposite of that.

Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.

How does the gun industry do the opposite of that? You don't see billboards about guns, you don't get flyers in the mail, they don't run television or radio commercials, and the only time you see guns even advertised is if you subscribe to a hunting or gun magazine. Maybe if you bought a gun somewhere, the gun shop will send you solicitations.

I don't watch commercials anymore, but how does Budweiser promote responsible drinking? At the end of the commercial they say "Drink responsibly." Big deal Two seconds out of a 30 second commercial.

The only time a bar can get sued is if they knew the patron was drunk. A gun shop has no idea of ill intent by a customer. They run his name through a federal background check and it's either permitted to sell that customer a weapon or it isn't.

I believe you are letting the gun shop owner off easy. And the government certainly does. You are correct, a bar can be found liable if they sell alcohol to someone that is drunk and that someone has an accident and kills someone. They don't get to say, we looked at his ID and he was old enough to buy it, so we sold it to him.

That is essentially what you are saying, and the government agrees with you, that if the gun shop runs the background check and it comes up clear, they can sell the gun. So if some dude with crazy ass eyes, reeking of body odor and disheveled clothes, comes storming in and demanding a gun, like right now, while muttering under his breath audibly, "I am going to get that SOB, if he passes the background check, sell him the gun. Are you starting to see the difference here?

Should car dealers be held to the same standard?

 

[woodwork201]

Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.

The gun industry is the opposite of that.

Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.

How does the gun industry do the opposite of that? You don't see billboards about guns, you don't get flyers in the mail, they don't run television or radio commercials, and the only time you see guns even advertised is if you subscribe to a hunting or gun magazine. Maybe if you bought a gun somewhere, the gun shop will send you solicitations.

I don't watch commercials anymore, but how does Budweiser promote responsible drinking? At the end of the commercial they say "Drink responsibly." Big deal Two seconds out of a 30 second commercial.

The only time a bar can get sued is if they knew the patron was drunk. A gun shop has no idea of ill intent by a customer. They run his name through a federal background check and it's either permitted to sell that customer a weapon or it isn't.

I believe you are letting the gun shop owner off easy. And the government certainly does. You are correct, a bar can be found liable if they sell alcohol to someone that is drunk and that someone has an accident and kills someone. They don't get to say, we looked at his ID and he was old enough to buy it, so we sold it to him.

That is essentially what you are saying, and the government agrees with you, that if the gun shop runs the background check and it comes up clear, they can sell the gun. So if some dude with crazy ass eyes, reeking of body odor and disheveled clothes, comes storming in and demanding a gun, like right now, while muttering under his breath audibly, "I am going to get that SOB, if he passes the background check, sell him the gun. Are you starting to see the difference here?

Are you serious? The government does agree with us on this: the gun shop could and would get sued in that case. Where the government and I (we, if I may take the liberty) disagree is that the government doesn't care if the gun shop gets sued for every shooting and, now, the government doesn't care if the gun maker gets sued. But no one, ever, anywhere, has suggested that the gun shop couldn't or shouldn't get sued in the example you gave. But the really obvious flaw in your argument is that your example has never, ever, happened. You can't show a single case where a gun shop ever sold a gun to someone who said they were going to "get" someone.

On the other point, though, I can't tell you how many times I've gone into a gun shop reeking of BO and filthy, disheveled, clothes at the end of a hard day at work. As for interpreting the meaning of any look in my eyes, well, I don't think the gun shop owner has the proper training to decipher that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I believe you are letting the gun shop owner off easy. And the government certainly does. You are correct, a bar can be found liable if they sell alcohol to someone that is drunk and that someone has an accident and kills someone. They don't get to say, we looked at his ID and he was old enough to buy it, so we sold it to him.

That is essentially what you are saying, and the government agrees with you, that if the gun shop runs the background check and it comes up clear, they can sell the gun. So if some dude with crazy ass eyes, reeking of body odor and disheveled clothes, comes storming in and demanding a gun, like right now, while muttering under his breath audibly, "I am going to get that SOB, if he passes the background check, sell him the gun. Are you starting to see the difference here?

I think what you should do is scroll back to my FactCheck post about the debate between Hillary and Bernie Sanders on this topic. It clearly states that if a gun shop owner was exposed to that info, he could be held liable. In fact there are a total of a half-dozen instances where the shop could still be held liable. If you can't find it or don't have time to look for it (I'm sure it's on the last five pages or so) then let me know and I'll post it again. The liability protection clause doesn't cover every and all situations.

What the liability protection clause does is deter ambulance chasers; people who will sue even though they really have no case, and it's a one in a hundred chance of being successful. Because of this law, there is zero chance of them winning a case such as a woman who lost a husband to firearm violence, or my city suing Smith and Wesson because most of the murder weapons happen to be Smith and Wesson.