Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped.

The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.

There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.

The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable? Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal. They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.

This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.

Any time Congress gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't, it becomes subject to the will of the party in power. Any Congressional restriction or executive order would likely be overturned by SCOTUS.
THEY have the ultimate power though.
Let's say a democrat appoints 3 Supreme Court justices. The individual right to bear arms is threatened and Heller might be overturned. You'd love that, I suppose, but what if a Conservative gets to pick the next 3 justices? Wave goodbye to Roe V Wade.

Yep. Sadly the Supreme Court is just the politically driven American Politburo now imposing the will of their political party

 

[kaz]

The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, terrorist, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.

As long as you mean removing their rights with due process of law, I agree. If you're advocating government can just decide someone can't get a gun without proving it in a court of law, then I don't. Not sure which you mean, just clarifying

 

[kaz]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped.

The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.

There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.

The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable? Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal. They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.

This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.

Yes, congress "sets the standard," but again, that standard has to be proven in court to remove someone's Constitutional rights, any of them

 

[kaz]

ChairmanGonzalo

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

So that's my OP post for your convenience. What say you? What's the plan? Love to hear it.

 

[MikeK]

The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding. Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one. Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.

 

[CowboyTed]

The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding. Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one. Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.

Then explain why gun crime in Europe is far lower?

How is 98.8 times a citizen in US gets shot dead by the police than in the UK? Thats a hundred times.... 70 times if you're white...

 

[Wry Catcher]

The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding. Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one. Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.

The Statement, "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!

The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. How many mass killers have criminal records

Q. How many crimes for profit had been committed by guns?

 

[MikeK]

The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding. Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one. Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.

The Statement, "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!

The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.

I live in a state where I cannot obtain a carry permit, so because I am law-abiding I am unarmed. But if I were inclined to ignore the law, as many dangerous criminals do, I would be armed.

If I owned a rifle which accommodated a 30-round magazine I could not own such a magazine because I am law-abiding. But if I had contempt for the law I would have three or four of them.

So what aspect of the Brady/Obama anti-gun brainwash has influenced your thinking? And what good are prohibitive gun laws if you are confronted by some violence-prone character with an illegal gun? Gun laws disarm you -- but not him.

 

[hunarcy]

The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding. Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one. Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.

Then explain why gun crime in Europe is far lower?

How is 98.8 times a citizen in US gets shot dead by the police than in the UK? Thats a hundred times.... 70 times if you're white...

Because most of the police in the UK do not carry firearms.

 

[hunarcy]

Q. How many mass killers have criminal records

Most did not, but most were known suffer from some sort of mental issue.

Q. How many crimes for profit had been committed by guns?

Not as many as have been committed with pens and computers.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Q. How many mass killers have criminal records

Q. How many crimes for profit had been committed by guns?

Mass killings account for less than 1% of all murders so even if you could magically stop mass killings the change in the murder rate would be negligible

 

[Wry Catcher]

The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding. Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one. Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.

The Statement, "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!

The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.

I live in a state where I cannot obtain a carry permit, so because I am law-abiding I am unarmed. But if I were inclined to ignore the law, as many dangerous criminals do, I would be armed.

If I owned a rifle which accommodated a 30-round magazine I could not own such a magazine because I am law-abiding. But if I had contempt for the law I would have three or four of them.

So what aspect of the Brady/Obama anti-gun brainwash has influenced your thinking? And what good are prohibitive gun laws if you are confronted by some violence-prone character with an illegal gun? Gun laws disarm you -- but not him.

If I take the meaning of unarmed, as I do in your case, it means you are witless.

How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?

 

[MikeK]

If I take the meaning of unarmed, as I do in your case, it means you are witless.

How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?

We are talking about availability, not misuse.

Obviously the gun laws haven't prevented criminals from obtaining guns. They prevent the law-abiding citizen from carrying them to defend themselves and others (presuming they are properly trained).

I was armed for 23 years when I lived in New York City. Now I live in New Jersey and I'm unable to obtain a carry permit -- even though I am at least as well-trained as most cops and have a pristine background.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding. Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one. Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.

The Statement, "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!

The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.

I live in a state where I cannot obtain a carry permit, so because I am law-abiding I am unarmed. But if I were inclined to ignore the law, as many dangerous criminals do, I would be armed.

If I owned a rifle which accommodated a 30-round magazine I could not own such a magazine because I am law-abiding. But if I had contempt for the law I would have three or four of them.

So what aspect of the Brady/Obama anti-gun brainwash has influenced your thinking? And what good are prohibitive gun laws if you are confronted by some violence-prone character with an illegal gun? Gun laws disarm you -- but not him.

If I take the meaning of unarmed, as I do in your case, it means you are witless.

How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
Almost 70% of murderers have a prior conviction

And when talking death by firearm please exclude suicide as suicide is not a crime it is a choice

 

[Wry Catcher]

The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding. Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one. Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.

The Statement, "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!

The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.

I live in a state where I cannot obtain a carry permit, so because I am law-abiding I am unarmed. But if I were inclined to ignore the law, as many dangerous criminals do, I would be armed.

If I owned a rifle which accommodated a 30-round magazine I could not own such a magazine because I am law-abiding. But if I had contempt for the law I would have three or four of them.

So what aspect of the Brady/Obama anti-gun brainwash has influenced your thinking? And what good are prohibitive gun laws if you are confronted by some violence-prone character with an illegal gun? Gun laws disarm you -- but not him.

If I take the meaning of unarmed, as I do in your case, it means you are witless.

How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
Almost 70% of murderers have a prior conviction

And when talking death by firearm please exclude suicide as suicide is not a crime it is a choice

I looked over your link, my initial reaction is you attempted to baffle 'em with bullshit. The question you did not respond to was this:

How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?

 

[MikeK]

I looked over your link, my initial reaction is you attempted to baffle 'em with bullshit. The question you did not respond to was this:

How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?

We're not discussing the sociological aspects of criminality but rather the effect of gun laws on the criminal use of guns. One outstanding example of the futility of most prohibitive gun laws is the level of gun violence in ghetto communities (outstandingly Chicago) the vast majority of which is perpetrated by young Black males -- none of whom have gun permits but obviously have guns. That fact alone should convince you that prohibitive gun laws are approximately as effective as are prohibitive drug laws and serve mainly to impede the law-abiding.

That is the only point I wish to make.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding. Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one. Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.

The Statement, "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!

The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.

I live in a state where I cannot obtain a carry permit, so because I am law-abiding I am unarmed. But if I were inclined to ignore the law, as many dangerous criminals do, I would be armed.

If I owned a rifle which accommodated a 30-round magazine I could not own such a magazine because I am law-abiding. But if I had contempt for the law I would have three or four of them.

So what aspect of the Brady/Obama anti-gun brainwash has influenced your thinking? And what good are prohibitive gun laws if you are confronted by some violence-prone character with an illegal gun? Gun laws disarm you -- but not him.

If I take the meaning of unarmed, as I do in your case, it means you are witless.

How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
Almost 70% of murderers have a prior conviction

And when talking death by firearm please exclude suicide as suicide is not a crime it is a choice

I looked over your link, my initial reaction is you attempted to baffle 'em with bullshit. The question you did not respond to was this:

How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?

What part of almost 70% did you not understand?

 

[owebo]

Q. How many mass killers have criminal records

Q. How many crimes for profit had been committed by guns?

Q. How many mass shooters were liberals.....

 

[MikeK]

Then explain why gun crime in Europe is far lower?

The U.S. and European nations are totally different cultures. America was born in a cloud of rebellious gunsmoke and guns thus became an endemic component of our culture

How is 98.8 times a citizen in US gets shot dead by the police than in the UK? Thats a hundred times.... 70 times if you're white...

The main reason for that difference is, with certain exceptions cops in the U.K. are not armed with guns.

Re: your reference to the racial disparity in the U.S., do you agree or disagree that Blacks in America are substantially more prone to violent behavior than are Whites?