CDZ Do You Support Gun Control?

[Lonestar_logic]

I support gun safety classes in public high school and community college. Everyone should be familiar with guns.

I agree and start in preschool.

 

[westwall]

No crazies
No convicts
Must be 21 years old
No machine guns, uzi's, etc. Period.

I own machine guns and in all the history of legal machine guns owned by the civilians of this country not one has ever been used to commit a crime. A POLICE OFFICER used a legal machinegun to commit a crime about 25 years or so ago but as a class of weapon they are the safest BY FAR of any type. That includes knives, swords, hands, feet, etc. They are so valuable that the idea that they would be used to commit a crime is simply ridiculous. One of my guns is worth over 100,000 bucks. You think anyone would use a weapon that cost that much to go rob a bank?

 

[westwall]

Until the gun manufacturers are forced to bear some responsibility I seen no change, and who protects the gun manufacturers?

If you wish to punish manufacturers for the illegal use of their product expect every manufacturer to go out of business. Cars are used far more often to commit crimes. Goodbye. How about hammers? Hard to build a house without a hammer. Basically holding any manufacturer accountable for the illegal use of their product is asinine.

 

[westwall]

Why? When was the last a time a crime was committed with a legal machine gun?

Why have a machine gun? What's the purpose?

First off because they're fun as hell. Secondly they are a better investment than almost anything else out there.

 

[Gracie]

Why? When was the last a time a crime was committed with a legal machine gun?

Why have a machine gun? What's the purpose?

Does there need to be a purpose? Because I want one isn't good enough?

I guess. I just don't understand why one is needed. But I read the thread ass backwards so now I know that its fun for some to have one. Ok. Personally, I'll pass. But I would love to have those two guns Ernie just got! I like older pistols instead of those squared off things with clips.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Do You Support Gun Control?

No.

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Owning a gun gives the law-abiding gun owner the ability to make the decision as to whether the use of force is lawful, right, and justified. Liberals don't believe ordinary citizens have the ability to make such decisions, hence their love affair with gun control.




.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Until the gun manufacturers are forced to bear some responsibility I seen no change, and who protects the gun manufacturers?

It truly is not reasonable to hold the manufacturer of a product responsible for what someone else may choose to inappropriately do with that product.

If I were to drive my 1997 Contour into a crowded playground, killing several children in the process, would the Ford Motor Company bear any responsibility for that? Of course not. If I did that, then •I• would bear the sole responsibility for that act, and for the consequences thereof. Not Ford, not the dealer who sold me that car, not the DMV for giving me a license to drive it, not the gas station that sold me the gasoline to fuel it, not the mechanic who helped me repair and maintain it; not anyone else who, by standard wrong-wing logic, one might try to assign some responsibility for my misuse of my automobile. This vehicle is my property, it is in my possession and under my control, and I alone am responsible for anything that I choose to do with it.

There's no reason why a gun is any different. I alone am responsible for any use that I choose to make of any of my weapons. If I choose to misuse one of my weapons in a manner that results in unjustified harm to another, then that is on me, and not on anyone else.

Really, your position is just an expression of a standard wrong-wing principle that refuses to assign blame for misconduct to the person who actually commits that misconduct, seeking instead to place the blame elsewhere.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I fully support gun control


Learn to control your guns people.

 

[PredFan]

Before the 60s, there was no gun control and no mass shootings. Then gun control came along and now we have mass shootings.

 

[Pogo]

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

Fully agree.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Fully disagree.

Liberals don't do "gun control". Know that Second Amendment? We wrote it.

 

[2aguy]

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

Fully agree.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Fully disagree.

Liberals don't do "gun control". Know that Second Amendment? We wrote it.

No, actual liberals wrote it...you guys...you took the term "liberal" and use it to hide the fact that you are leftwing, big government statists..the exact opposite of a true "liberal."

 

[sealybobo]

Absolutely not.

By definition, criminals do not obey the law, and this includes laws that purport to prohibit them from possessing arms.

Laws that impair the right of the people to keep and bear arms only deter law-abiding citizens, and all that this accomplishes is to make them easier prey for the criminals.

The earliest gun control laws were rather unabashedly intended to protect the interests of violent criminals—from the earliest laws that were aimed at recently-freed slaves, to protect the safely of Ku Klux Klansmen, through New York's Sullivan law, the progenitor of all modern gun control laws, authored by a criminal gangster-turned-politician, for the benefit if his gang and those allied therewith.

The only thing that is any different about modern gun control laws is that they are not nearly as open and obvious about their true intended purpose; which is the same that it has always been—to protect the interests of criminals and tyrants against the ability of honest citizens to defend against them.

Are you worried they would deny you a gun?

Have you seen a shrink?

Honest truth is nothing is going to prevent a but from shooting up a place. It's gonna happen occasionally.

But what we can do is stop the unregulated flow of guns onto our streets. Gun nuts will defend the gun manufacturers and the status quo but the system is fucked up. And who's to blame? The gun industry. They maximize their profits by flooding the market with guns they know some will end up in the hands of criminals.

Straw purchases? Fuck that.

 

[2aguy]

Absolutely not.

By definition, criminals do not obey the law, and this includes laws that purport to prohibit them from possessing arms.

Laws that impair the right of the people to keep and bear arms only deter law-abiding citizens, and all that this accomplishes is to make them easier prey for the criminals.

The earliest gun control laws were rather unabashedly intended to protect the interests of violent criminals—from the earliest laws that were aimed at recently-freed slaves, to protect the safely of Ku Klux Klansmen, through New York's Sullivan law, the progenitor of all modern gun control laws, authored by a criminal gangster-turned-politician, for the benefit if his gang and those allied therewith.

The only thing that is any different about modern gun control laws is that they are not nearly as open and obvious about their true intended purpose; which is the same that it has always been—to protect the interests of criminals and tyrants against the ability of honest citizens to defend against them.

Are you worried they would deny you a gun?

Have you seen a shrink?

Honest truth is nothing is going to prevent a but from shooting up a place. It's gonna happen occasionally.

But what we can do is stop the unregulated flow of guns onto our streets. Gun nuts will defend the gun manufacturers and the status quo but the system is fucked up. And who's to blame? The gun industry. They maximize their profits by flooding the market with guns they know some will end up in the hands of criminals.

Straw purchases? Fuck that.

Guns are one of the most regulated products in the country. Criminals are to blame, no one else....

Over 320 million guns are in private hands....

in 2014 only 8,124 gun murders committed by crimnals....

That means

319,991,876 guns were not used to commit murder......

Again..we don't have a gun problem...we have a media problem that makes it seem like we have a gun problem...but not a real problem...

And keep in mind...of those 8,124 gun murders.....most of them occur in small, multi block areas in our democrat controlled cities...and the rest of the cities, and the rest of the country...are safer than Europe.....

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Why? When was the last a time a crime was committed with a legal machine gun?

Why have a machine gun? What's the purpose?

Why do civil law enforcement authorities feel they need machine guns?

If a person meets all the requirements to purchase a firearm legally then they should be allowed to purchase whatever the civil law enforcement agencies are allowed to carry in stock.

*****SMILE*****

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

Fully agree.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Fully disagree.

Liberals don't do "gun control". Know that Second Amendment? We wrote it.

No, liberals didn't write the 2nd Amendment, and it isn't even a liberal /conservative issue either.

It's a control issue. no different than those who wish to use the government to outlaw abortion, or gay marriage, or discrimination or what have you, It's all about some people want to use the power of government to force others to behave in a certain manner that is inconsistent with our founding principles. That being, if you aren't hurting someone else, the government will leave you alone.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

No

I support the Constitution.

shame so many like you don't

 

[westwall]

Absolutely not.

By definition, criminals do not obey the law, and this includes laws that purport to prohibit them from possessing arms.

Laws that impair the right of the people to keep and bear arms only deter law-abiding citizens, and all that this accomplishes is to make them easier prey for the criminals.

The earliest gun control laws were rather unabashedly intended to protect the interests of violent criminals—from the earliest laws that were aimed at recently-freed slaves, to protect the safely of Ku Klux Klansmen, through New York's Sullivan law, the progenitor of all modern gun control laws, authored by a criminal gangster-turned-politician, for the benefit if his gang and those allied therewith.

The only thing that is any different about modern gun control laws is that they are not nearly as open and obvious about their true intended purpose; which is the same that it has always been—to protect the interests of criminals and tyrants against the ability of honest citizens to defend against them.

Are you worried they would deny you a gun?

Have you seen a shrink?

Honest truth is nothing is going to prevent a but from shooting up a place. It's gonna happen occasionally.

But what we can do is stop the unregulated flow of guns onto our streets. Gun nuts will defend the gun manufacturers and the status quo but the system is fucked up. And who's to blame? The gun industry. They maximize their profits by flooding the market with guns they know some will end up in the hands of criminals.

Straw purchases? Fuck that.

It's that part where some nameless bureaucrat gets to decide whether or not you can have a weapon. Once you go down that road you are a subject. The friends of the bureaucrat will have no problem getting guns, but you, who once looked at a FOB (friend of bureaucrat) wrong, can't get one.

Do you begin to grasp the problems that come with that sort of corruption.

 

[kaz]

You're too lazy to google it, aren't you? Congress passing a law is not due process

If Congress changes the law's due process, then the due process changes along with that law, obviously.

By changing the law to restrict gun use and ownership through bureaucratic malice, it becomes the new due process. Just look at DC and how it keeps passing laws to harass gun owners into not bringing guns into the district, or how New Jersey has a zerop tolerance policy on gun control violations and you can wind up in prison for simply carrying your airport luggage to your hotel room for an overnight wait for a connecting flight.

You have no clue what due process is. Come back and try again after you at least make the effort to become better educated than a chimp.

If you knew it was different than what I am saying it is then you would have explained it instead of carrying on a bluff.

Due process changes by executive order, new laws and changes in case law. It isn't some magical ephemeral eternal object independent of government control and/or definition. For example prior to the recent SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage, same sex marriage was not due process in most states. After the SCOTUS ruling it became part of due process in all states.
Capice now, dude? 'Due process' changes every year.

What do "executive orders" have to do with due process? You still haven't googled it, have you?

Executive orders and other instructions to the executive branch on what policy is and will be is part of 'due process'.

I have looked it up and even quoted a good length of it, and I am satisfied that I understand it contrary to your nonexistent explanation of why I don't.

Due process isn't a legislative function, Holmes, it's a judicial one. And it's not a system process it's an individual one. Your extensive research on the subject didn't tell you that?

 

[ninja007]

do libs understand that criminals (who do 99% of killing)- will get guns no matter what? Or are they just that stupid?

 

[Vigilante]