Knee-deep in blood: We are all being held hostage by Wayne LaPierre’s children

[Lakhota]

 

[OKTexas]

It's not TERRORISM. It was an isolated act by an evil and disturbed person. There is no Terrorist Network behind it.

There are Evil People in the world who do harm to others. Some are organized and conduct broad ranging terrorism (ISIS and their beheadings, burnings, and rapes), others are individuals acting in isolation.

Roof was the latter. It does a huge disservice to the issue to conflate both groups.

It was an act of domestic terrorism by someone who belonged to the racist white supremacists movement.

It's obvious he was part of that rightwing movement. It's not like you have to be registered and card carrying.

So which group did he specifically belong to?

What difference would that make?

And thanks for tacitly admitting that he must have obtained his racist flag patches and vile unamerican ideas from white supremacists.

I admitted nothing tactfully or otherwise, I never mentioned flag patches or anything else about his wardrobe, you can buy just about anything from anonymous sellers on ebay. So don't try to project your BS on me.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, child abuser, gangsters, paranoid schizophrenics, and others who the legislature of the State within which you reside decide should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

Then, as a responsible gun owner you can sell a gun knowing that the person you have sold the weapon to is less likely to pull off a mass murder or kill someone over an argument. It's all about Personal responsibility.

you do realize that all the mass shooters passed background checks or avoided them...so the ones who passed background checks would also have been able to get a gun license...right? And they would still have committed the mass shooting....

Therefore the license was pointless...

And the ones who didn't pass the background checks....the columbine teenagers who couldn't legally but he weapons they used, would also by pass the licensing process as well...right...and would still have committed their mass shootings....

Again...the license would be pointless...


I have shown that gun licensing law abiding people will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals....if a criminal is caught with a gun, your violent criminal, child abuser (convicted right?) gangsters, all will be arrested if they are caught with a gun and no license is needed to do it...

The nuts....if we could trust you guys not to abuse the system you would have more support...we don't trust you.....you would turn any mental health check into a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who ever saw a mental health professional...like the soldier denied his gun rights because he had insomnia.....

I've pointed out several times you're not very bright, and that a parrot can contribute more to any discussion if given a cracker than you have ever done.

Guns kill people! People like you are complicit (that means morally culpable) every time an innocent human being is murdered by a gun in America. I'm an agnostic, but I hope I'm wrong and hell exists, for that is where a POS like you belongs.

See asshole...I pointed out that your statist idea to license law abiding gun owners would do nothing to stop evil people from getting guns...I showed you exactly why your idea is dumb.......anyone can read what I posted above and see how your idea is dumb........and you can't respond to it because it is right...licensing law abiding gun owners does nothing to stop criminals from getting guns..at all.....and so it is pointless, useless paperwork......and you have no response...and lash out because you were shown to be wrong and silly...you are an asshole on top of that.....

I ... post ... in actual ..... sentences .... cause I have an idea .... that doing so .... gives ... is respectful of ... the ...English language. Doing otherwise is disrespectful and gives.... the impression .... the author is uneducated and dim of wit.

Calling me an asshole by hiding behind your keyboard is the sign of a coward. Posting in dot form (...) is the sign of someone without higher education - in your case a high school diploma, and intellectually challenged. You're a loser 2aguy, dumb, yellow and immature.

Or, he may be correct and you are one. attacking his use of dots to separate ideas rather than dealing with those ideas and then getting into childish name calling seems to support that.

Really? You think he has ideas? He's a parrot and has never offered anything of substance.

He missed the point entirely, and by starting his rant with a pejorative (calling me a Statist) his cred dropped to zero. We live in a nation of laws, calling someone a Statist based on their opinion that licensing those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control and said license being a product of a democratically elected State Legislature seems appropriate and doesn't quite fit into the definition of a statist.

His comments suggest he is closer to an anarchist than I to being a Statist.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Expecting you to pass a competency test in order to be in possession of a gun is not an "attack" on your rights.

It quite literally does.

But I don't get my right to own and effectively use state of the art firearms in defense of my means to freely exercise my God-given rights, from the government, thus I do not seek permission from the government to own and effectively use state of the art firearms in defense of my means to exercise my God-given rights.

Requirements that I must, decidedly would infringe upon that right.

The State can shove their interests, up their collective. My Rights are not a subjective which is relevant to them, at all... > . <

Gee, who wrote this rant ^^^, was it written by James Oliver Huberty, Patrick H. Sherrill, Patrick Edward Purdy, James E. Pough, George Jo Hennard, Eric Houston, Gian Luigi Ferri, Colin Ferguson, Mitchell Johnson or Andrew Golden, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, Mark Orrin Barton, Larry Gene Ashbrook, Byran Uyesugi, Michael McDermott, Charles Andrew Williams, Robert S. Flores, Doug Williams, Jeffrey Weise, Charles Carl Roberts IV, Sulejman Talovic, Seung-hui Cho, Robert Hawkins, Steven Kazmierczak, Jiverly Voong, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Omar S. Thornton, Jared Lee Loughner, Scott Dekraai, One L. Goh, James Holmes, Wade Michael Page, Andrew Engeldinger, Radcliffe Haughton, Adam Lanza, John Zawahri, Aaron Alexis, or Dylann Storm Roof? And Lee Malvo.

Read their stories and those they murdered, here:

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

Why didn't you include Lee Malvo?

Good point, any other captious comments you would like to make? I'll happily consider them even though I'd rather deal with substantive remarks.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It was an act of domestic terrorism by someone who belonged to the racist white supremacists movement.

It's obvious he was part of that rightwing movement. It's not like you have to be registered and card carrying.

So which group did he specifically belong to?

What difference would that make?

And thanks for tacitly admitting that he must have obtained his racist flag patches and vile unamerican ideas from white supremacists.

I admitted nothing tactfully or otherwise, I never mentioned flag patches or anything else about his wardrobe, you can buy just about anything from anonymous sellers on ebay. So don't try to project your BS on me.

Drowning in denial doesn't alter what you actually posted.

 

[OKTexas]

It's obvious he was part of that rightwing movement. It's not like you have to be registered and card carrying.

So which group did he specifically belong to?

What difference would that make?

And thanks for tacitly admitting that he must have obtained his racist flag patches and vile unamerican ideas from white supremacists.

I admitted nothing tactfully or otherwise, I never mentioned flag patches or anything else about his wardrobe, you can buy just about anything from anonymous sellers on ebay. So don't try to project your BS on me.

Drowning in denial doesn't alter what you actually posted.

LMAO, more projection, is that really all you got?

 

[Wry Catcher]

that isn't the problem. it's not keeping guns away from crazies, loons, and criminals.

it's harder to get a drivers license in some places than a gun license.

but we can pretend it's about mental institutions.

Why do I need gun license anyways?

To keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, child abuser, gangsters, paranoid schizophrenics, and others who the legislature of the State within which you reside decide should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

Then, as a responsible gun owner you can sell a gun knowing that the person you have sold the weapon to is less likely to pull off a mass murder or kill someone over an argument. It's all about Personal responsibility.

you do realize that all the mass shooters passed background checks or avoided them...so the ones who passed background checks would also have been able to get a gun license...right? And they would still have committed the mass shooting....

Therefore the license was pointless...

And the ones who didn't pass the background checks....the columbine teenagers who couldn't legally but he weapons they used, would also by pass the licensing process as well...right...and would still have committed their mass shootings....

Again...the license would be pointless...


I have shown that gun licensing law abiding people will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals....if a criminal is caught with a gun, your violent criminal, child abuser (convicted right?) gangsters, all will be arrested if they are caught with a gun and no license is needed to do it...

The nuts....if we could trust you guys not to abuse the system you would have more support...we don't trust you.....you would turn any mental health check into a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who ever saw a mental health professional...like the soldier denied his gun rights because he had insomnia.....

I've pointed out several times you're not very bright, and that a parrot can contribute more to any discussion if given a cracker than you have ever done.

Guns kill people! People like you are complicit (that means morally culpable) every time an innocent human being is murdered by a gun in America. I'm an agnostic, but I hope I'm wrong and hell exists, for that is where a POS like you belongs.

People kill people. If they don't have a firearm, they'll use their hands or a pillow to strangle them or water to drown them; or they'll use poison, a knife, a bat, a club, an axe or even a car to accomplish their hateful impulses. Your fear of firearms is unfounded. You should focus on the real issue and that's the violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill.

I don't particularly fear fire arms; I respect their lethality. The difference between an attack with a gun, and all of the other options are clear, if one thinks about it.

• Guns are used mostly at a distance
• Most of your other choices require close combat
• Poison and most of the others require premeditation
• Acting spontaneously is safer with a gun (for the killer)
• Less forensic evidence is left behind when using a gun
• a gun can be used from a hidden location

Other than locking up for life every criminal for every offense how does one prevent someone from getting a gun and killing one or more innocent people? Both those with a criminal record and those with no record at all are able to get their hands on a gun legally and illegally today. What's you solution?

CA has a law, but it is only in effect after a gun is used in the commission of a crime:

10 20 Life Use a Gun You re Done California Penal Code 12022.53

How does this prevent mass murders and the taking of innocent lives?

Let's talk about mental health and criminal behavior. I've advocated no one should have a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun if they have been convicted of a crime of violence (child abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, rape, sexual battery, etc.) or have a documented history of substance abuse (DUI's, possession of a controlled substance) or have ever been detained as a danger to themselves or others. Most people agree.

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Cause being an arrest for any of the above offenses, and others decided by the state legislature. Suspension immediately and the offender ordered to surrender all firearms before bail or release and revoked if convicted of certain crimes.

A person who completes his or her sentence successfully - including any period of supervised release - can apply to have the license reinstated upon securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation (see CA law for an example).

A person detained under a civil commitment (CA Law 5150, et seq) or civilly committed to a locked psychiatric facility can appeal any suspension or appeal once released from psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist. Termination of any treatment against medical advice is not sufficient to have a revocation of said license restored.

These are my opinions, the answer to the obvious question is this.

No, this will not prevent murder or mass murders. However, anyone who has a gun in his or her possession and is not licensed should be fined $10,000, as will any licensed person who sells, gives. loans or shares a gun with an unlicensed person. The licensed person will suffer the additional sanction of confiscation of any gun they own, possess or have in their custody or control.

 

[2aguy]

Why do I need gun license anyways?

To keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, child abuser, gangsters, paranoid schizophrenics, and others who the legislature of the State within which you reside decide should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

Then, as a responsible gun owner you can sell a gun knowing that the person you have sold the weapon to is less likely to pull off a mass murder or kill someone over an argument. It's all about Personal responsibility.

you do realize that all the mass shooters passed background checks or avoided them...so the ones who passed background checks would also have been able to get a gun license...right? And they would still have committed the mass shooting....

Therefore the license was pointless...

And the ones who didn't pass the background checks....the columbine teenagers who couldn't legally but he weapons they used, would also by pass the licensing process as well...right...and would still have committed their mass shootings....

Again...the license would be pointless...


I have shown that gun licensing law abiding people will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals....if a criminal is caught with a gun, your violent criminal, child abuser (convicted right?) gangsters, all will be arrested if they are caught with a gun and no license is needed to do it...

The nuts....if we could trust you guys not to abuse the system you would have more support...we don't trust you.....you would turn any mental health check into a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who ever saw a mental health professional...like the soldier denied his gun rights because he had insomnia.....

I've pointed out several times you're not very bright, and that a parrot can contribute more to any discussion if given a cracker than you have ever done.

Guns kill people! People like you are complicit (that means morally culpable) every time an innocent human being is murdered by a gun in America. I'm an agnostic, but I hope I'm wrong and hell exists, for that is where a POS like you belongs.

People kill people. If they don't have a firearm, they'll use their hands or a pillow to strangle them or water to drown them; or they'll use poison, a knife, a bat, a club, an axe or even a car to accomplish their hateful impulses. Your fear of firearms is unfounded. You should focus on the real issue and that's the violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill.

I don't particularly fear fire arms; I respect their lethality. The difference between an attack with a gun, and all of the other options are clear, if one thinks about it.

• Guns are used mostly at a distance
• Most of your other choices require close combat
• Poison and most of the others require premeditation
• Acting spontaneously is safer with a gun (for the killer)
• Less forensic evidence is left behind when using a gun
• a gun can be used from a hidden location

Other than locking up for life every criminal for every offense how does one prevent someone from getting a gun and killing one or more innocent people? Both those with a criminal record and those with no record at all are able to get their hands on a gun legally and illegally today. What's you solution?

CA has a law, but it is only in effect after a gun is used in the commission of a crime:

10 20 Life Use a Gun You re Done California Penal Code 12022.53

How does this prevent mass murders and the taking of innocent lives?

Let's talk about mental health and criminal behavior. I've advocated no one should have a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun if they have been convicted of a crime of violence (child abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, rape, sexual battery, etc.) or have a documented history of substance abuse (DUI's, possession of a controlled substance) or have ever been detained as a danger to themselves or others. Most people agree.

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Cause being an arrest for any of the above offenses, and others decided by the state legislature. Suspension immediately and the offender ordered to surrender all firearms before bail or release and revoked if convicted of certain crimes.

A person who completes his or her sentence successfully - including any period of supervised release - can apply to have the license reinstated upon securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation (see CA law for an example).

A person detained under a civil commitment (CA Law 5150, et seq) or civilly committed to a locked psychiatric facility can appeal any suspension or appeal once released from psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist. Termination of any treatment against medical advice is not sufficient to have a revocation of said license restored.

These are my opinions, the answer to the obvious question is this.

No, this will not prevent murder or mass murders. However, anyone who has a gun in his or her possession and is not licensed should be fined $10,000, as will any licensed person who sells, gives. loans or shares a gun with an unlicensed person. The licensed person will suffer the additional sanction of confiscation of any gun they own, possess or have in their custody or control.

someone convicted of those crimes you mentioned..?Are felons and already can't own guns.......licensing peaceful, law,abiding citizens.....who don't commit crime....utterly pointless,and a waste of law enforcements time.....

you don't stop drunk drivers before they drive...the law let's you arrest them when they are caught.......

You guys want to stop criminals before they commit crimes with guns but there is no way to do that....except for the laws already on the books that say a felon can't have or carry any gun and is arrested if they are caught with one....

licensing not required to do that.......

Licensing....please explain how it works to stop criminals....because it doesn't...at all and you can't explain how it does....it simply sounds good to you guys


licensing law abiding people stops no crime...we already have laws making it illegal for people convicted of violent crimes to own or carry guns. (please...do some basic research) and if felons are caught with guns....they can already be arrested.....

None of what you posted means anything real.......please...explain how licensing does anything at all that you say you want

 

[2aguy]

Why do I need gun license anyways?

To keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, child abuser, gangsters, paranoid schizophrenics, and others who the legislature of the State within which you reside decide should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

Then, as a responsible gun owner you can sell a gun knowing that the person you have sold the weapon to is less likely to pull off a mass murder or kill someone over an argument. It's all about Personal responsibility.

you do realize that all the mass shooters passed background checks or avoided them...so the ones who passed background checks would also have been able to get a gun license...right? And they would still have committed the mass shooting....

Therefore the license was pointless...

And the ones who didn't pass the background checks....the columbine teenagers who couldn't legally but he weapons they used, would also by pass the licensing process as well...right...and would still have committed their mass shootings....

Again...the license would be pointless...


I have shown that gun licensing law abiding people will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals....if a criminal is caught with a gun, your violent criminal, child abuser (convicted right?) gangsters, all will be arrested if they are caught with a gun and no license is needed to do it...

The nuts....if we could trust you guys not to abuse the system you would have more support...we don't trust you.....you would turn any mental health check into a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who ever saw a mental health professional...like the soldier denied his gun rights because he had insomnia.....

I've pointed out several times you're not very bright, and that a parrot can contribute more to any discussion if given a cracker than you have ever done.

Guns kill people! People like you are complicit (that means morally culpable) every time an innocent human being is murdered by a gun in America. I'm an agnostic, but I hope I'm wrong and hell exists, for that is where a POS like you belongs.

People kill people. If they don't have a firearm, they'll use their hands or a pillow to strangle them or water to drown them; or they'll use poison, a knife, a bat, a club, an axe or even a car to accomplish their hateful impulses. Your fear of firearms is unfounded. You should focus on the real issue and that's the violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill.

I don't particularly fear fire arms; I respect their lethality. The difference between an attack with a gun, and all of the other options are clear, if one thinks about it.

• Guns are used mostly at a distance
• Most of your other choices require close combat
• Poison and most of the others require premeditation
• Acting spontaneously is safer with a gun (for the killer)
• Less forensic evidence is left behind when using a gun
• a gun can be used from a hidden location

Other than locking up for life every criminal for every offense how does one prevent someone from getting a gun and killing one or more innocent people? Both those with a criminal record and those with no record at all are able to get their hands on a gun legally and illegally today. What's you solution?

CA has a law, but it is only in effect after a gun is used in the commission of a crime:

10 20 Life Use a Gun You re Done California Penal Code 12022.53

How does this prevent mass murders and the taking of innocent lives?

Let's talk about mental health and criminal behavior. I've advocated no one should have a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun if they have been convicted of a crime of violence (child abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, rape, sexual battery, etc.) or have a documented history of substance abuse (DUI's, possession of a controlled substance) or have ever been detained as a danger to themselves or others. Most people agree.

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Cause being an arrest for any of the above offenses, and others decided by the state legislature. Suspension immediately and the offender ordered to surrender all firearms before bail or release and revoked if convicted of certain crimes.

A person who completes his or her sentence successfully - including any period of supervised release - can apply to have the license reinstated upon securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation (see CA law for an example).

A person detained under a civil commitment (CA Law 5150, et seq) or civilly committed to a locked psychiatric facility can appeal any suspension or appeal once released from psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist. Termination of any treatment against medical advice is not sufficient to have a revocation of said license restored.

These are my opinions, the answer to the obvious question is this.

No, this will not prevent murder or mass murders. However, anyone who has a gun in his or her possession and is not licensed should be fined $10,000, as will any licensed person who sells, gives. loans or shares a gun with an unlicensed person. The licensed person will suffer the additional sanction of confiscation of any gun they own, possess or have in their custody or control.

I

advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Again..What does this actually do? criminals won't and more importantly can't get your "license"...... Do you think they will say...oh well, I guess that means I can't have a gun.......no, they get guns faster than the law abiding people you want to
License....what does this do?

can anyone explain what licensing gun owners does except for generating more revenue for the state...since criminals currently carry guns illegally now......

just like people with suspended car drivers licenses drive anyway......if caught they are ticketed or arrests....same thing right this very minute with guns.....if a criminal is stopped by police and caught with a gun, they are,arrested...why do we need a license...other than to generate revenue for the state?


FAIL

 

[2aguy]

Do you also advocate for licensing anyone who uses a computer....computer crime is just as rampant as any other crime...why not license anyone who wants to use a computer or license anyone who wants to post on the Internet...since we are licensing the practice of Rights...

 

[2aguy]

I am currently reading " Gun Control in the 3rd Reich". Did you know that the Weimar Republic licensed gun owners too, and it did nothing to stop the various socialist revolutionaries and criminals from getting guns.....

everything you want has been done, and has already failed.......the only people who couldn't get guns in Weimar Germany were law abiding citizens because the government and the police did not think,people needed guns...since they had police...and criminals still got guns...lots of them....

You are rehashing failed gun control policies.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

To keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, child abuser, gangsters, paranoid schizophrenics, and others who the legislature of the State within which you reside decide should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

Then, as a responsible gun owner you can sell a gun knowing that the person you have sold the weapon to is less likely to pull off a mass murder or kill someone over an argument. It's all about Personal responsibility.

you do realize that all the mass shooters passed background checks or avoided them...so the ones who passed background checks would also have been able to get a gun license...right? And they would still have committed the mass shooting....

Therefore the license was pointless...

And the ones who didn't pass the background checks....the columbine teenagers who couldn't legally but he weapons they used, would also by pass the licensing process as well...right...and would still have committed their mass shootings....

Again...the license would be pointless...


I have shown that gun licensing law abiding people will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals....if a criminal is caught with a gun, your violent criminal, child abuser (convicted right?) gangsters, all will be arrested if they are caught with a gun and no license is needed to do it...

The nuts....if we could trust you guys not to abuse the system you would have more support...we don't trust you.....you would turn any mental health check into a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who ever saw a mental health professional...like the soldier denied his gun rights because he had insomnia.....

I've pointed out several times you're not very bright, and that a parrot can contribute more to any discussion if given a cracker than you have ever done.

Guns kill people! People like you are complicit (that means morally culpable) every time an innocent human being is murdered by a gun in America. I'm an agnostic, but I hope I'm wrong and hell exists, for that is where a POS like you belongs.

People kill people. If they don't have a firearm, they'll use their hands or a pillow to strangle them or water to drown them; or they'll use poison, a knife, a bat, a club, an axe or even a car to accomplish their hateful impulses. Your fear of firearms is unfounded. You should focus on the real issue and that's the violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill.

I don't particularly fear fire arms; I respect their lethality. The difference between an attack with a gun, and all of the other options are clear, if one thinks about it.

• Guns are used mostly at a distance
• Most of your other choices require close combat
• Poison and most of the others require premeditation
• Acting spontaneously is safer with a gun (for the killer)
• Less forensic evidence is left behind when using a gun
• a gun can be used from a hidden location

Other than locking up for life every criminal for every offense how does one prevent someone from getting a gun and killing one or more innocent people? Both those with a criminal record and those with no record at all are able to get their hands on a gun legally and illegally today. What's you solution?

CA has a law, but it is only in effect after a gun is used in the commission of a crime:

10 20 Life Use a Gun You re Done California Penal Code 12022.53

How does this prevent mass murders and the taking of innocent lives?

Let's talk about mental health and criminal behavior. I've advocated no one should have a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun if they have been convicted of a crime of violence (child abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, rape, sexual battery, etc.) or have a documented history of substance abuse (DUI's, possession of a controlled substance) or have ever been detained as a danger to themselves or others. Most people agree.

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Cause being an arrest for any of the above offenses, and others decided by the state legislature. Suspension immediately and the offender ordered to surrender all firearms before bail or release and revoked if convicted of certain crimes.

A person who completes his or her sentence successfully - including any period of supervised release - can apply to have the license reinstated upon securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation (see CA law for an example).

A person detained under a civil commitment (CA Law 5150, et seq) or civilly committed to a locked psychiatric facility can appeal any suspension or appeal once released from psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist. Termination of any treatment against medical advice is not sufficient to have a revocation of said license restored.

These are my opinions, the answer to the obvious question is this.

No, this will not prevent murder or mass murders. However, anyone who has a gun in his or her possession and is not licensed should be fined $10,000, as will any licensed person who sells, gives. loans or shares a gun with an unlicensed person. The licensed person will suffer the additional sanction of confiscation of any gun they own, possess or have in their custody or control.

someone convicted of those crimes you mentioned..?Are felons and already can't own guns.......licensing peaceful, law,abiding citizens.....who don't commit crime....utterly pointless,and a waste of law enforcements time.....

you don't stop drunk drivers before they drive...the law let's you arrest them when they are caught.......

You guys want to stop criminals before they commit crimes with guns but there is no way to do that....except for the laws already on the books that say a felon can't have or carry any gun and is arrested if they are caught with one....

licensing not required to do that.......

Licensing....please explain how it works to stop criminals....because it doesn't...at all and you can't explain how it does....it simply sounds good to you guys


licensing law abiding people stops no crime...we already have laws making it illegal for people convicted of violent crimes to own or carry guns. (please...do some basic research) and if felons are caught with guns....they can already be arrested.....

None of what you posted means anything real.......please...explain how licensing does anything at all that you say you want

Once again you make shit up and report it as fact. The crimes I posted are not all felonies, Rape is, the rest can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies (a status known as a wobbler).

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license, driving on a suspended or revoked license can land the offender in jail for 6 months and the vehicle can be impounded on the dime of the offender (hint, it's many many dimes). In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense. MADD has had a major impact on saving lives and reducing drunk driving.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

 

[Ame®icano]

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license, driving on a suspended or revoked license can land the offender in jail for 6 months and the vehicle can be impounded on the dime of the offender (hint, it's many many dimes). In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense. MADD has had a major impact on saving lives and reducing drunk driving.

So really, based on your own words above, being caught drunk driving results in suspended license. That still doesn't stop some of those with suspended license to drive. Just this time, if they're caught, their punishment is much harder. Basically, what you saying, having suspended license did not really stop them from driving again, it just cost them more if they do.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

Responsible citizens do not commit crimes. Criminals do. You know, those whose licenses are suspended, or revoked, like your drunk driver example above. Or those who never had a license.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

Don't we already have laws that covers cases like that? What these cases have to do with, let's say, all those murders in Chicago or Detroit?

 

[2aguy]

you do realize that all the mass shooters passed background checks or avoided them...so the ones who passed background checks would also have been able to get a gun license...right? And they would still have committed the mass shooting....

Therefore the license was pointless...

And the ones who didn't pass the background checks....the columbine teenagers who couldn't legally but he weapons they used, would also by pass the licensing process as well...right...and would still have committed their mass shootings....

Again...the license would be pointless...


I have shown that gun licensing law abiding people will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals....if a criminal is caught with a gun, your violent criminal, child abuser (convicted right?) gangsters, all will be arrested if they are caught with a gun and no license is needed to do it...

The nuts....if we could trust you guys not to abuse the system you would have more support...we don't trust you.....you would turn any mental health check into a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who ever saw a mental health professional...like the soldier denied his gun rights because he had insomnia.....

I've pointed out several times you're not very bright, and that a parrot can contribute more to any discussion if given a cracker than you have ever done.

Guns kill people! People like you are complicit (that means morally culpable) every time an innocent human being is murdered by a gun in America. I'm an agnostic, but I hope I'm wrong and hell exists, for that is where a POS like you belongs.

People kill people. If they don't have a firearm, they'll use their hands or a pillow to strangle them or water to drown them; or they'll use poison, a knife, a bat, a club, an axe or even a car to accomplish their hateful impulses. Your fear of firearms is unfounded. You should focus on the real issue and that's the violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill.

I don't particularly fear fire arms; I respect their lethality. The difference between an attack with a gun, and all of the other options are clear, if one thinks about it.

• Guns are used mostly at a distance
• Most of your other choices require close combat
• Poison and most of the others require premeditation
• Acting spontaneously is safer with a gun (for the killer)
• Less forensic evidence is left behind when using a gun
• a gun can be used from a hidden location

Other than locking up for life every criminal for every offense how does one prevent someone from getting a gun and killing one or more innocent people? Both those with a criminal record and those with no record at all are able to get their hands on a gun legally and illegally today. What's you solution?

CA has a law, but it is only in effect after a gun is used in the commission of a crime:

10 20 Life Use a Gun You re Done California Penal Code 12022.53

How does this prevent mass murders and the taking of innocent lives?

Let's talk about mental health and criminal behavior. I've advocated no one should have a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun if they have been convicted of a crime of violence (child abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, rape, sexual battery, etc.) or have a documented history of substance abuse (DUI's, possession of a controlled substance) or have ever been detained as a danger to themselves or others. Most people agree.

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Cause being an arrest for any of the above offenses, and others decided by the state legislature. Suspension immediately and the offender ordered to surrender all firearms before bail or release and revoked if convicted of certain crimes.

A person who completes his or her sentence successfully - including any period of supervised release - can apply to have the license reinstated upon securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation (see CA law for an example).

A person detained under a civil commitment (CA Law 5150, et seq) or civilly committed to a locked psychiatric facility can appeal any suspension or appeal once released from psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist. Termination of any treatment against medical advice is not sufficient to have a revocation of said license restored.

These are my opinions, the answer to the obvious question is this.

No, this will not prevent murder or mass murders. However, anyone who has a gun in his or her possession and is not licensed should be fined $10,000, as will any licensed person who sells, gives. loans or shares a gun with an unlicensed person. The licensed person will suffer the additional sanction of confiscation of any gun they own, possess or have in their custody or control.

someone convicted of those crimes you mentioned..?Are felons and already can't own guns.......licensing peaceful, law,abiding citizens.....who don't commit crime....utterly pointless,and a waste of law enforcements time.....

you don't stop drunk drivers before they drive...the law let's you arrest them when they are caught.......

You guys want to stop criminals before they commit crimes with guns but there is no way to do that....except for the laws already on the books that say a felon can't have or carry any gun and is arrested if they are caught with one....

licensing not required to do that.......

Licensing....please explain how it works to stop criminals....because it doesn't...at all and you can't explain how it does....it simply sounds good to you guys


licensing law abiding people stops no crime...we already have laws making it illegal for people convicted of violent crimes to own or carry guns. (please...do some basic research) and if felons are caught with guns....they can already be arrested.....

None of what you posted means anything real.......please...explain how licensing does anything at all that you say you want

Once again you make shit up and report it as fact. The crimes I posted are not all felonies, Rape is, the rest can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies (a status known as a wobbler).

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license, driving on a suspended or revoked license can land the offender in jail for 6 months and the vehicle can be impounded on the dime of the offender (hint, it's many many dimes). In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense. MADD has had a major impact on saving lives and reducing drunk driving.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense.

But they were not Prevented from driving were they, they were caught in the act, just like a criminal using a gun, and again no licensing of gun owners would be needed to do this....and if you are caught using a gun to commit a crime...the first time....you can actually be arrested and go to jail for years....so again you are wrong you do not need a license to achieve this.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

Responsible citizens are already "responsible" and a license will not change that or make it better, and why is a license needed to give another responsible person a gun. the license does nothing. You already can't give a felon a gun, you can't give a gun to a person who is going to rob a bank, again, no license is needed to do that...right now...today. If they give a gun to a felon, no license is going to stop that act...in fact that is how criminals get guns now...and it is a felony to do that now....again, no need to license anyone.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

If someone leaves a gun in a place where a kid gets it there are already consequences for that, they can be arrested for criminal negligence and can be sued in civil court for what they did...again, no license needed.

there is nothing that you posted that requires a license to do. We already do everything that you posted.

What is is with the anti gunners that they think more paperwork will be a talisman against criminal or negligent behavior. All a license is, is a revenue generator for the state. Just add more paperwork, add more fees and it will prevent bad behavior....no other law functions under that belief.....when you break the law you get consequences, not before you break the law. A law abiding citizen has done nothing wrong and if they do they can be dealt with.....no license required to do that.

if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc

Since a license means nothing, it is just more paperwork, it is unnecessary.....if they sell to a criminal then they have committed a crime...and can be arrested and have proven they can't be trusted to own, possess, etc. and no license needed.

Your whole concept has been done before, you know. In Weimar Germany they licensed gun owners, and law abiding citizens were kept from getting those licenses because the police didn't think they needed them, since the police would keep them safe.....and the criminals got the guns.....without licenses...

Everything you want has been tried before in the past and has been shown to be pointless paper work.

 

[2aguy]

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license, driving on a suspended or revoked license can land the offender in jail for 6 months and the vehicle can be impounded on the dime of the offender (hint, it's many many dimes). In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense. MADD has had a major impact on saving lives and reducing drunk driving.

So really, based on your own words above, being caught drunk driving results in suspended license. That still doesn't stop some of those with suspended license to drive. Just this time, if they're caught, their punishment is much harder. Basically, what you saying, having suspended license did not really stop them from driving again, it just cost them more if they do.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

Responsible citizens do not commit crimes. Criminals do. You know, those whose licenses are suspended, or revoked, like your drunk driver example above. Or those who never had a license.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

Don't we already have laws that covers cases like that? What these cases have to do with, let's say, all those murders in Chicago or Detroit?

The anti gunners have a fixation on paperwork.....as if it is a talisman against future crime. It is something I don't understand.

 

[TooTall]

Knee-deep in blood: We are all being held hostage by Wayne LaPierre’s children

Brilliant piece on the continuing blood bath caused by the NRA.

Let us state for the record that there is critical mass of Americans in this country whose very existence is based upon ignorance, paranoia, racism, seething hatred, bitterness, and bigotry. They can’t get up in the morning unless they have someone to hate or look down upon, because that is what lifts them up and makes their world seem not so shitty.

And occasionally this animating animus bubbles up to the surface and racist all-cap rants on Facebook won’t make the pain go away — and there is the NRA is standing by with, as they say at the hardware stores: “the right tool for the right job.”

Because Wayne LaPierre’s terrorist-enabling organization does their damndest to make sure weapons are unregulated, cheap, and plentiful, practically any U.S. citizen can settle any trifling argument with as little as three pounds of pressure on a trigger.

• The mother of Adam Lanza — who had severe emotional problems — kept her home stocked with multiple weapons and thought it would be a good idea to bring her son out of his shell by teaching him how to shoot. How did that work out? 26 people dead at Sandy Hook — 20 of whom we’re children 7-years-old or younger. Also: Nancy Lanza. Adam Lanza brought a shotgun, an AR15 assault weapon, and two handguns with him to the elementary school.
• Elliot Rodgers of Santa Barbara couldn’t get laid and hated women. His solution: he killed 6 people and wounded fourteen others. His weapons of choice: 3 handguns, all purchased legally under the benevolent gaze of Wayne LaPierre.
• Craig Stephen Hicks had a parking dispute with some Muslim students near the campus of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He executed all three of them with a shot to the head. He liked to carry his .38 on his hip, because he was an open-carry enthusiast.
• Another open-carry enthusiast –Alex Kozak — sexually harassed a woman at the mall where he worked. After losing his job, he returned to the mall with his 9mm and shot 20-year-old Andrea Farrington 3-times. In the back.
• And now Dylann Storm Roof sat in a predominately black church in Charleston, South Carolina, before opening fire and killing nine African-Americans, explaining, “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country — and you have to go.” Dylann had a history of brushes with the law, was arrested in February on drug charges in addition to being kicked out of a mall for acting “weird,” and was described by his uncle as a “loner” who stayed cooped up in his room. He was given a .45 handgun in April for his birthday. By his father.

The NRA is not solely to blame here, although they certainly believe they are 100 percent in the clear because, hey, who can possibly know what people are going to do with a fine piece of machinery designed to kill? You also have idiot parents who think weapons can be therapeutic or might make swell gifts for their oddball kids.

But the NRA, under LaPierre, has its blood-soaked hands smudging-up every attempt at passing laws that might slow down our national genocide, including recently stopping a law that would have kept guns out of the hands of domestic abusers in Louisiana.

I’ll say it again, and I’ll never stop saying it: It’s Wayne LaPierre’s world — and we’re just dying in it.

Put this on t-shirts and sell them at gun shows.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

[TooTall]

I'll admit that closing down the mental hospitals was a really stupid move. What did we expect? We allow our truly fucked in the head to run around without any help.

that isn't the problem. it's not keeping guns away from crazies, loons, and criminals.

it's harder to get a drivers license in some places than a gun license.

but we can pretend it's about mental institutions.

While I know that a DL is not a right but a privilege it is interesting that we require anyone wanting a DL to prove competency before allowing them to drive a 2 ton vehicle on public roads.

But no competency is required to carry around a lethal weapon capable of killing someone from a distance.

That alone says that there is something wrong with not enforcing reasonable competency testing for everyone who wants to carry a gun.

But the NRA screeches that this amounts to "grabbing our guns" which is total BS. It just means you can't walk around in public without proving that you know when NOT to pull the trigger.

Most states require testing and training if you want to carry your gun concealed, i.e. in public. The problem is grabbers use this as a way to deny firearms to be people, "because we say say so" just like in NYC.

Plus a vehicle moving at 30 to 65 miles per hour is always an inherent risk, the energy potential for damage is there during normal operations. Guns on the other hand when just carried do not, there has to be an action done on them for them to be dangerous.

The problem is that many states DON'T have any such testing and training and the NRA obstructs any and all attempts to mandate such programs.

The NRA offers over 30 training programs teaching use and safety in pistol, rifle and shotgun courses.
I agree that there should not be a law that MANDATES a program. First the mandate, then the fee that will increase every time the politicians need more revenue.
I learned how to use a rifle as a teenager when I went hunting and the military gave me a lot more training in pistol, rifle, and automatic weapons use. I could teach gun use and safety.

 

[TooTall]

There is no evidence that any gun control regulation will reduce gun violence.

The evidence shows that gun control regulation does not reduce gun violence.

What evidence are you referring to? I'm providing evidence that gun control in other countries is highly successful, but they don't have an organization like the NRA to contend with.

These Laws Are The Reason Canada Australia Japan And The UK Have Such Low Gun Homicide Rates - Business Insider

Other countries don't have a 2nd Amendment in their Constitution either.

 

[Wildman]

liberfools, please name just one anti gun/gun control law that stopped just one criminal.

betcha can not.

only law abiding citizens obey any law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Visualizing gun deaths - Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

Herein ^^^ are some facts worth considering.

I've pointed out several times you're not very bright, and that a parrot can contribute more to any discussion if given a cracker than you have ever done.

Guns kill people! People like you are complicit (that means morally culpable) every time an innocent human being is murdered by a gun in America. I'm an agnostic, but I hope I'm wrong and hell exists, for that is where a POS like you belongs.

People kill people. If they don't have a firearm, they'll use their hands or a pillow to strangle them or water to drown them; or they'll use poison, a knife, a bat, a club, an axe or even a car to accomplish their hateful impulses. Your fear of firearms is unfounded. You should focus on the real issue and that's the violence committed by criminals and the mentally ill.

I don't particularly fear fire arms; I respect their lethality. The difference between an attack with a gun, and all of the other options are clear, if one thinks about it.

• Guns are used mostly at a distance
• Most of your other choices require close combat
• Poison and most of the others require premeditation
• Acting spontaneously is safer with a gun (for the killer)
• Less forensic evidence is left behind when using a gun
• a gun can be used from a hidden location

Other than locking up for life every criminal for every offense how does one prevent someone from getting a gun and killing one or more innocent people? Both those with a criminal record and those with no record at all are able to get their hands on a gun legally and illegally today. What's you solution?

CA has a law, but it is only in effect after a gun is used in the commission of a crime:

10 20 Life Use a Gun You re Done California Penal Code 12022.53

How does this prevent mass murders and the taking of innocent lives?

Let's talk about mental health and criminal behavior. I've advocated no one should have a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun if they have been convicted of a crime of violence (child abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, rape, sexual battery, etc.) or have a documented history of substance abuse (DUI's, possession of a controlled substance) or have ever been detained as a danger to themselves or others. Most people agree.

I advocate that each state have the authority to require a person who resides or visits said state from owning, possessing, etc. a gun unless said person is licensed to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun. Said license to be issued by the state, and to be revoked or suspended for cause. Out of state licensing would not be valid in other states;

Cause being an arrest for any of the above offenses, and others decided by the state legislature. Suspension immediately and the offender ordered to surrender all firearms before bail or release and revoked if convicted of certain crimes.

A person who completes his or her sentence successfully - including any period of supervised release - can apply to have the license reinstated upon securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation (see CA law for an example).

A person detained under a civil commitment (CA Law 5150, et seq) or civilly committed to a locked psychiatric facility can appeal any suspension or appeal once released from psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist. Termination of any treatment against medical advice is not sufficient to have a revocation of said license restored.

These are my opinions, the answer to the obvious question is this.

No, this will not prevent murder or mass murders. However, anyone who has a gun in his or her possession and is not licensed should be fined $10,000, as will any licensed person who sells, gives. loans or shares a gun with an unlicensed person. The licensed person will suffer the additional sanction of confiscation of any gun they own, possess or have in their custody or control.

someone convicted of those crimes you mentioned..?Are felons and already can't own guns.......licensing peaceful, law,abiding citizens.....who don't commit crime....utterly pointless,and a waste of law enforcements time.....

you don't stop drunk drivers before they drive...the law let's you arrest them when they are caught.......

You guys want to stop criminals before they commit crimes with guns but there is no way to do that....except for the laws already on the books that say a felon can't have or carry any gun and is arrested if they are caught with one....

licensing not required to do that.......

Licensing....please explain how it works to stop criminals....because it doesn't...at all and you can't explain how it does....it simply sounds good to you guys


licensing law abiding people stops no crime...we already have laws making it illegal for people convicted of violent crimes to own or carry guns. (please...do some basic research) and if felons are caught with guns....they can already be arrested.....

None of what you posted means anything real.......please...explain how licensing does anything at all that you say you want

Once again you make shit up and report it as fact. The crimes I posted are not all felonies, Rape is, the rest can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies (a status known as a wobbler).

Drunks can be stopped driving by suspending their license, driving on a suspended or revoked license can land the offender in jail for 6 months and the vehicle can be impounded on the dime of the offender (hint, it's many many dimes). In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense. MADD has had a major impact on saving lives and reducing drunk driving.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

In fact drunk drivers in CA have their car impounded for 30-days on a first offense.

But they were not Prevented from driving were they, they were caught in the act, just like a criminal using a gun, and again no licensing of gun owners would be needed to do this....and if you are caught using a gun to commit a crime...the first time....you can actually be arrested and go to jail for years....so again you are wrong you do not need a license to achieve this.

Responsible citizens understand that having a license allows them to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, but holds them responsible to keep their guns out of the hands of those unlicensed. It's a simple concept, owning a gun requires the owner to be responsible, if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc.

Responsible citizens are already "responsible" and a license will not change that or make it better, and why is a license needed to give another responsible person a gun. the license does nothing. You already can't give a felon a gun, you can't give a gun to a person who is going to rob a bank, again, no license is needed to do that...right now...today. If they give a gun to a felon, no license is going to stop that act...in fact that is how criminals get guns now...and it is a felony to do that now....again, no need to license anyone.

If the licensed gun owner leaves a gun in a non secure location, and a child finds it and harms others, including their self, the gun owner should lose his or her license. The consequences for violating gun license requirements being necessary and sufficient to convince people to be responsible seems a plausible and lease restrictive means to mitigate gun violence.

If someone leaves a gun in a place where a kid gets it there are already consequences for that, they can be arrested for criminal negligence and can be sued in civil court for what they did...again, no license needed.

there is nothing that you posted that requires a license to do. We already do everything that you posted.

What is is with the anti gunners that they think more paperwork will be a talisman against criminal or negligent behavior. All a license is, is a revenue generator for the state. Just add more paperwork, add more fees and it will prevent bad behavior....no other law functions under that belief.....when you break the law you get consequences, not before you break the law. A law abiding citizen has done nothing wrong and if they do they can be dealt with.....no license required to do that.

if they prove they are not (by selling to someone unlicensed) they are in fact a criminal and have proven they should no longer be trusted to own, possess, etc

Since a license means nothing, it is just more paperwork, it is unnecessary.....if they sell to a criminal then they have committed a crime...and can be arrested and have proven they can't be trusted to own, possess, etc. and no license needed.

Your whole concept has been done before, you know. In Weimar Germany they licensed gun owners, and law abiding citizens were kept from getting those licenses because the police didn't think they needed them, since the police would keep them safe.....and the criminals got the guns.....without licenses...

Everything you want has been tried before in the past and has been shown to be pointless paper work.

'And still people run red lights and drive when drunk. Yeah, a point that means nothing - laws don't prevent crime. To follow your logic (so to speak) the penal code has never been shown to eliminate crime, thus why have one?



.