Mass shooting near school in Baltimore

[M14 Shooter]

You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.

And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

LIAR

:Not in the slightest.
You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Your lie is belied by all of my posts on the issue. In context, find any single post where I have called for or suggested all gun owning citizens would be forced to give up their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

Don't copy and paste, give the thread name and the post number.

Your failure to do so proves you have constantly lied; without providing evidence it's clear you are, and what I know you to be, a damn liar!

Have a nice day.

CumCatcher - You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.
M14Shooter - And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.
The better question is why would anyone propose a law that they think will not have any effect in preventing crime?

More failed laws = an excuse to enact more laws - laws that will fail. Rinse, repeat.

Anti-gun loons such as WC don't give a hoot in hell about crime, they simply want to place as many mindless, unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of aw abiding as they can.

 

[LOki]

Progressives are still motivated to keep guns out of the hands of everyone but the right whites.

OK. Whatever.

Face it, those like you who wish to concentrate gun ownership in the hands of the politically privileged elite, are the "anti democratic, authoritarians who are fueled by greed, hate and fear."

Basically you're dishonest.

Not at all. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Good. What do you offer in return? Nothing of value?

Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

What lies? I posted no lies.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence.

No. YOU have a problem with "gun violence." For the rest of us the problem is violence... ALL of it. You obviously find violence entirely acceptable, provided only that no gun is involved.

Probably because in your romanticized notions of violence, guns allow for an unfair advantage... for victims.

It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Right. Not violence... ONLY "gun violence."

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

100% denial of reality from a superstitious gun-queer.

Thus it is my opinion that the NRA and its members are culpable for more deaths of innocent Americans than all the terrorists have accomplished.

An opinion based entirely on logical fallacy and OBVIOUS disinformation.

Nothing you've posted reflects reality. Thus, you are schizophrenic or a liar.

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Which logical fallacy do you suppose I've committed?

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent red lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.

And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

LIAR

:Not in the slightest.
You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Your lie is belied by all of my posts on the issue. In context, find any single post where I have called for or suggested all gun owning citizens would be forced to give up their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

Don't copy and paste, give the thread name and the post number.

Your failure to do so proves you have constantly lied; without providing evidence it's clear you are, and what I know you to be, a damn liar!

Have a nice day.

CumCatcher - You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.
M14Shooter - And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

The better question is why would anyone propose a law that they think will not have any effect in preventing crime?

That's a stupid question. Most people obey the law, and I've explained why too often for anyone following gun threads not to notice - and that includes you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Basically you're dishonest.

Not at all. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Good. What do you offer in return? Nothing of value?

Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

What lies? I posted no lies.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence.

No. YOU have a problem with "gun violence." For the rest of us the problem is violence... ALL of it. You obviously find violence entirely acceptable, provided only that no gun is involved.

Probably because in your romanticized notions of violence, guns allow for an unfair advantage... for victims.

It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Right. Not violence... ONLY "gun violence."

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

100% denial of reality from a superstitious gun-queer.

Thus it is my opinion that the NRA and its members are culpable for more deaths of innocent Americans than all the terrorists have accomplished.

An opinion based entirely on logical fallacy and OBVIOUS disinformation.

Nothing you've posted reflects reality. Thus, you are schizophrenic or a liar.

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Which logical fallacy do you suppose I've committed?

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent red lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun. Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom. A mother bear protects her cubs, a herd of elephants protects their young and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species; yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs, and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links. If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Face it, if they were to run a story every time some feral negro in Baltimore shot someone, it would have to be a daily paper the size of the Washington Post with nothing but Feral Negros acting like animals.

 

[2aguy]

And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

LIAR

:Not in the slightest.
You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Your lie is belied by all of my posts on the issue. In context, find any single post where I have called for or suggested all gun owning citizens would be forced to give up their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

Don't copy and paste, give the thread name and the post number.

Your failure to do so proves you have constantly lied; without providing evidence it's clear you are, and what I know you to be, a damn liar!

Have a nice day.

CumCatcher - You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.
M14Shooter - And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

The better question is why would anyone propose a law that they think will not have any effect in preventing crime?

That's a stupid question. Most people obey the law, and I've explained why too often for anyone following gun threads not to notice - and that includes you.

The people who obey the law are already obeying the law that says you can't murder people…..so how would licensing them, registering their guns and forcing them to get a universal background check enhance what they are already doing….

What you need to address is the people who are not obeying current laws and who will not obey future laws…..show us the laws you can create that will actually affect them….genius….

 

[2aguy]

Not at all. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Good. What do you offer in return? Nothing of value?

What lies? I posted no lies.

No. YOU have a problem with "gun violence." For the rest of us the problem is violence... ALL of it. You obviously find violence entirely acceptable, provided only that no gun is involved.

Probably because in your romanticized notions of violence, guns allow for an unfair advantage... for victims.

Right. Not violence... ONLY "gun violence."

100% denial of reality from a superstitious gun-queer.

An opinion based entirely on logical fallacy and OBVIOUS disinformation.

Nothing you've posted reflects reality. Thus, you are schizophrenic or a liar.

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Which logical fallacy do you suppose I've committed?

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent red lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun. Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom. A mother bear protects her cubs, a herd of elephants protects their young and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species; yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs, and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links. If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration)

You still throw out those terms…licensing and registration as if they are important……..you have been shown over and over that they do absolutely nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns…they would simply be more paperwork, more money and more manpower for useless time consuming gestures……

And yet you keep pushing them as if they are relevant to gun crime…why is that? Did you fall on your head when you were a child…did you eat lead paint?

And with over 320 million guns in private hands and over 12.8 million people carrying guns for self defense and only 8,124 gun murders by gang members and career criminals who do not obey gun laws in the first place, and only 505 accidental gun deaths in a country of over 320 million people…..

We do not have a gun problem….the problems we have that create gun crime….

--fatherless boys

--prosecutors and judges who do not sentence gun crimes with long prison terms

Those are where our efforts should actually be…..

 

[2aguy]

Not at all. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Good. What do you offer in return? Nothing of value?

What lies? I posted no lies.

No. YOU have a problem with "gun violence." For the rest of us the problem is violence... ALL of it. You obviously find violence entirely acceptable, provided only that no gun is involved.

Probably because in your romanticized notions of violence, guns allow for an unfair advantage... for victims.

Right. Not violence... ONLY "gun violence."

100% denial of reality from a superstitious gun-queer.

An opinion based entirely on logical fallacy and OBVIOUS disinformation.

Nothing you've posted reflects reality. Thus, you are schizophrenic or a liar.

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Which logical fallacy do you suppose I've committed?

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent re

d lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun. Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom. A mother bear protects her cubs, a herd of elephants protects their young and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species; yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs, and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links. If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

Right from the first link….do you know that gun crime is increasing in all of those countries mentioned……and that is after the confiscations and extreme gun control?

That according to European police, guns are easily acquired by criminals and they prefer fully automatic military rifles on the Continent……..


So try to deal with the truth and reality…….

 

[Wry Catcher]

LIAR

:Not in the slightest.
You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Your lie is belied by all of my posts on the issue. In context, find any single post where I have called for or suggested all gun owning citizens would be forced to give up their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

Don't copy and paste, give the thread name and the post number.

Your failure to do so proves you have constantly lied; without providing evidence it's clear you are, and what I know you to be, a damn liar!

Have a nice day.

CumCatcher - You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.
M14Shooter - And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

The better question is why would anyone propose a law that they think will not have any effect in preventing crime?

That's a stupid question. Most people obey the law, and I've explained why too often for anyone following gun threads not to notice - and that includes you.

The people who obey the law are already obeying the law that says you can't murder people…..so how would licensing them, registering their guns and forcing them to get a universal background check enhance what they are already doing….

What you need to address is the people who are not obeying current laws and who will not obey future laws…..show us the laws you can create that will actually affect them….genius….

LOL. Well, one does not need to be a genius to understand that laws enforced and punishment meted out to future criminals is the work of fiction. That you believe such is possible makes you several standard deviations below that of genius.

Read the links I posted above, they were published 0n Sunday, 10/11/15 in the San Francisco Chronicle, attribution to the original source is posted in the links.

Read them and respond.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nothing you've posted reflects reality. Thus, you are schizophrenic or a liar.

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Which logical fallacy do you suppose I've committed?

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent re

d lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun. Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom. A mother bear protects her cubs, a herd of elephants protects their young and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species; yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs, and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links. If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

Right from the first link….do you know that gun crime is increasing in all of those countries mentioned……and that is after the confiscations and extreme gun control?

That according to European police, guns are easily acquired by criminals and they prefer fully automatic military rifles on the Continent……..


So try to deal with the truth and reality…….

I don't believe you, post a source as I did!

 

[2aguy]

:Not in the slightest.
You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Your lie is belied by all of my posts on the issue. In context, find any single post where I have called for or suggested all gun owning citizens would be forced to give up their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.

Don't copy and paste, give the thread name and the post number.

Your failure to do so proves you have constantly lied; without providing evidence it's clear you are, and what I know you to be, a damn liar!

Have a nice day.

CumCatcher - You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.
M14Shooter - And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

The better question is why would anyone propose a law that they think will not have any effect in preventing crime?

That's a stupid question. Most people obey the law, and I've explained why too often for anyone following gun threads not to notice - and that includes you.

The people who obey the law are already obeying the law that says you can't murder people…..so how would licensing them, registering their guns and forcing them to get a universal background check enhance what they are already doing….

What you need to address is the people who are not obeying current laws and who will not obey future laws…..show us the laws you can create that will actually affect them….genius….

LOL. Well, one does not need to be a genius to understand that laws enforced and punishment meted out to future criminals is the work of fiction. That you believe such is possible makes you several standard deviations below that of genius.

Read the links I posted above, they were published 0n Sunday, 10/11/15 in the San Francisco Chronicle, attribution to the original source is posted in the links.

Read them and respond.

I already read some…they are crap…..gun crime in Britain was way below that in the United STates before the ban….and I have just posted all weekend shootings that have happened in Canada, Britain and Australia, which shows that had any of those shooters simply walked into a school, they would have had mass shootings……

Those countries, Canada, Britain and Australia…..their criminals already have access to guns whenever they want them….as easily as our criminals do….they do not use them as often……by choice….not due to lack of guns…..a 19 year old easily got a glock, ammo and pipe bombs, and would have attacked his former school…..in Britain….there have been 3 mass shootings in Australia since the confiscation and guns are showing up more and more among their teenage criminals…

What are they going to say when their gun crime keeps increasing even with the confiscation and bans…….?

 

[2aguy]

Not at all. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Good. What do you offer in return? Nothing of value?

What lies? I posted no lies.

No. YOU have a problem with "gun violence." For the rest of us the problem is violence... ALL of it. You obviously find violence entirely acceptable, provided only that no gun is involved.

Probably because in your romanticized notions of violence, guns allow for an unfair advantage... for victims.

Right. Not violence... ONLY "gun violence."

100% denial of reality from a superstitious gun-queer.

An opinion based entirely on logical fallacy and OBVIOUS disinformation.

Nothing you've posted reflects reality. Thus, you are schizophrenic or a liar.

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Which logical fallacy do you suppose I've committed?

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent red lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun. Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom. A mother bear protects her cubs, a herd of elephants protects their young and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species; yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs, and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links. If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

Your sources are crap…typical anti gun crap…why….?

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

In this link above they add suicides to the gun death count….a typical anti gun tactic to push up the gun death numbers in the U.S. since 8,124 gun murders in a country of over 320 million is not impressive…………

And in Japan, South Korea, and China they have absolute gun control and 2 times or more the suicide rate we have. Add to that the fact that rope is the most common method of suicide around the world….

So more anti gun crap……….

 

[2aguy]

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent re

d lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children w

ere murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun. Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom. A mother bear protects her cubs, a herd of elephants protects their young and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species; yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs, and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links. If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

Right from the first link….do you know that gun crime is increasing in all of those countries mentioned……and that is after the confiscations and extreme gun control?

That according to European police, guns are easily acquired by criminals and they prefer fully automatic military rifles on the Continent……..


So try to deal with the truth and reality…….

I don't believe you, post a source as I did!

This is just the beginning…..

Gun found every two days in Melbourne s red zone

Police are discovering guns in cars every two days in Melbourne's north-west, which has been dubbed the "red zone" by officers concerned about a growing gangster culture in the region.
The alarming figure, obtained from The Police Association, follows anecdotal and statistical evidence of a burgeoning gun culture among young men in the city's north-western fringe.
Police working in the large region, which includes Broadmeadows, Sunshine and Werribee, have reported:
Advertisement

• Firearm-related incidents, such as drive-by shootings, every six days.
• An increasing trend of children as young as 16 carrying guns.
• Regularly finding guns in cars, including sawn-off shotguns and an automatic machine gun, during routine car intercepts.
• Guns stolen from rural homes being used in violent crime in the north-west. Some 530 guns were stolen in rural Victoria in 2013.

It comes as the Crime Statistics Agency released figures on Thursday showing an almost threefold jump in firearm offences in the north-west over the past five years, from 581 in the year to March 2011 to 1332 in the 12 months to April 2015.
A similar trend was reported statewide, with firearm offences rising more than 50 per cent to 13,626.
The figures follow recent high-profile shootings in which two men have been killed - one in Keysborough, the other in Altona Meadows - and significant gun seizures by police. In March, an automatic machine gun was found during a car intercept in Sunbury, and in February, an M16 assault rifle and Thureon machine gun were seized in raids on homes in the city's west.

news video on increasing gun crime...shows robbery and injured...

Gun crime red zone

Gunman holds hostages..muslim....

2014 Sydney hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 15–16 December 2014 a lone gunman, Man Haron Monis, held hostage ten customers and eight employees of a Lindt chocolate café located at Martin Placein Sydney, Australia. Police treated the event as a terrorist attack at the time[11][12] but Monis' motives have subsequently been debated.[13]

After a 16-hour standoff, a gunshot was heard from inside and police officers from the Tactical Operations Unitstormed the café. Hostage Tori Johnson was killed by Monis and hostage Katrina Dawson was killed by a police bullet ricochet in the subsequent raid. Monis was also killed. Three other hostages and a police officer were injured by police gunfire during the raid.[1][14][15]
Immigrant teen shoots cop with handgun...

Teen's Slaying Of Australian Police Worker 'Linked To Terror'

he 15-year-old, who is of Iraqi-Kurdish background and was born in Iran, shot a New South Wales police finance worker with a handgun at close range as the man left work in the western Sydney suburb of Parramatta on Friday, police Commissioner Andrew Scipione (pictured right above, alongside state Premier Mike Baird) said. The teen then fired at responding officers, who shot and killed him, Scipione said.

from 2013...drive bys in australia

Year of the gun: Sydney in grip of upswing in shooting crime

 

[2aguy]

Nonsense. None of your factually baseless accusations have any merit.

Ignoratio Elenchi, Argumentum Ad-hominem, Du Chaudron, Strawman Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Magical Thinking, Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc, Affirming the Consequent... the list goes on--pick one, Princess.

Done. Now let's see if you can make a point using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Anyone can go on line and list logical fallacies.

Not in dispute. What is your point?

Without providing examples you have done nothing beyond mentally masturbating (MM).

You didn't ask for examples, Princess; you asked for the logical fallacies you've committed. Is that not so? Of course it is.

That you think, oops, that you believe your response is anything but MM is sad.

Well, if you belive my response is something other than what you asked for, then you're just delusional.

However, it seems you wish to be exposed. Here you go:

Aw, poor baby, so afraid of being "punished" I bet you resent re

d lights and stop signs, hate government and any idea which might in some tiny manner impact your rights.

Hating the Government, and/or resenting traffic law is beside the point.

Basically you're dishonest. I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state. Posting lies won't change my policy positions no matter how often those on the fringe try to rewrite it.

This isn't about anyone trying to rewrite or change your policy positions by "posting lies." And calling me dishonest, is just another red herring.

BTW, I recommend you look up the work "culpable", maybe your ignorance will defend your foolish remarks.

Seriously. Your rebuttals are so meaningless that you make the pretence that I need to look up the word, "culpable".

Racism seems to go hand in hand with a gun fetish and bigotry. The common denominator ... drum roll please .... hate and fear.

Of course not, you're a callous conservative who lives by the motto, I got mine, fuck the rest of you.

Let's just say this is all true... it has ZERO bearing upon the validity of their point.

We need a national registry of those persons who should never be permitted to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

with:

I want everyone who wants to own, possess or ever have in their custody and control licensed by their state.

Your notions are just laughable. "Let's just make a registry of EVERYONE! Treat all criminals as criminals, and all potential criminals as crimiminals!" What could go wrong with that?

You're better off arguing for just one.

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

None of this is true, and it is presented only because it's easier to attack than what is true.

You must be stupid. The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist. That you deny that is cause to wonder if you are a liar or stupid. I believe you are both.

Just because someone with a "gun fetish" posts something racist, it does not follow that those with a "gun fetish" are racists.

Once again, laws do not prevent crime. We have laws because most people believe in them and some people are also afraid of the punishment. Thus a law prevents some illegal activity but never ever all of it.

What's magical about your thinking, is the notion that creating new criminals with a stroke of the legislative pen will have ANY preventative effect upon crime.

What's all the more magical about your thinking is the fatuous notion that those individuals who don't license themselves, who don't register their guns, who don't submit themselves to background checks now (because of their criminal background or criminal intent), will suddenly do so when such requirements are made "universal." That burdening the open market for guns will in some way never before seen weaken the black market for guns.

Do you ever wonder about the parents of the children denied the right to have a life?

I can do this too: Yeah. I wonder... if they could go back to the place and time just moments before their children were murdered... if they had the choice between having a gun to defend their children, or the gun-control law that was a barrier ONLY to them having a gun to defend their children, if they'd still choose the gun-control over having the gun.

Still not an appeal to emotion? I'm just wondering, because it is well agreed upon that submitting to your appeal to emotion would have had ZERO effect upon the tragedies you're waving at us to support your argument.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us,...

It does not follow that the violence that is alarming us--even the "gun violence"--is caused by guns being ubiquitous.

We have a problem and that problems is gun violence. It impacts families, schools, small business, government services on all levels and health care.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by the policy positions you advocate.

The rhetoric above is clear and convincing evidence that those with a gun fetish are also racist.

...and...

The NRA and its followers offer no solutions, for their rights to enjoy their fetish, supersede the rights of everyone else.

Your use of "gun fetish" is in every case you've used it just a pre-emptive ad-hominem, whose purpose is to paint all pro-rights arguments with the same tar brush.

Guns are ubiquitous in our culture and easily obtained by all of us, even those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control.

Do you have any kind of solution other than the patently ineffective, idiotic, immoral, and/or unconstitutional schemes to restrict access for everyone BUT those most of us agree should never own, possess or have one in their custody and control"?

Let's just see what you got for us.

Gun sales to those who should never have access to them can be limited if a national registry existed, where anyone who sold a gun could check to see if the buyer was legally licensed on line.

Why make a list of legal owners...who are merely exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right--WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG--when instead you could make a list of prohibited persons? Why?

There is ONLY one reason; general confiscation.

There exists no Constitutional Right to Privacy,...

4th Amendment; 9th Amendment; 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut ... and Roe v Wade.

*mic drop.*

... no matter how the NRA and its supporters want to spin "infringed".

What do you mean by "spin"?

Thus the sale a of a gun to an unlicensed person would become a felony,...

Upon what constitutional, rational, and/or moral grounds do you validate requiring a license to exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right?

... and cause to suspend or revoke the license of the seller.

For the seller would by definition become a criminal.

Malum Prohibitum. You're obviously looking to create criminals out of legislation for the sole purpose of creating criminals.

It would also make sense for all new guns sold to be registered to the buyer, and when the gun is sold, it is sold to a buyer licensed, and the record of the sale be forwarded to the DOJ.

You say criminals would register their guns. Really?

What? Only the law-abiding would? Why do you want to know only about law-abiding folks and their lawfully owned guns? Tell us, Princess.

There's a reason gun registries are illegal, Sweetheart... they have only unconsitutional purposes.

Thus, if the weapon is used in a crime, it can be tracked to its lawful owner;...

Who probably didn't commit any crime. Keystone Cop action right there.

... and, if the gun is stolen, it can be reported as such and recorded on the same registry.

Which can happen anyway WITHOUT a registry.

Can and will fraud continue?

Only in the private sector, right? The State is above that. There is no possibilty that the kind and benevolent State and it's incorruptible agents would abuse the powers granted to them... let's just get rid of laws all together... particularly that pesky Constitution and its inconvenient Bill of Rights.

Of course, but laws are made because (1) honest citizens understand the need for laws and respect them, and (2) those who violate the law are punished. That is why they mostly work. To not have laws is anarchy.

Laws like the Bill of Rights? What does it mean to not have your rights protected by law?

There is no rational rebuttal to this argument;...

There are plenty.

...only an emotional challenge;...

Irony is ironic. Your argument is ENTIRELY founded upon emotion. Your proposals are ENTIRELY emotional reaction.

...such challenges always includes a recitation of the Second Amendment,...

Didn't you just say, "To not have laws is anarchy."?

Why yes, you did!

...which only fools and those challenged by reality believe is sacrosanct.

The 2nd Amendment is every bit as "sacrosanct" as the rest of the Bill of Rights... your implication that rights-proponents are asserting otherwise is really just another of your strawmen.

Getting a license will be easy, as long as one has never been convicted of a crime of violence,...

OR getting on a list of Prohibited persons is just as easy--commit a violent crime.

And creating a list of prohibited persons is much less intellectually, morally, and constitutionally repugnant than putting folks on a special list because they are exercising any of their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights.

...has never been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, found by a court to be a member of a criminal gang, sanctioned with a restraining order or on probation.

ALL OF THIS can be accomplished without violating ANY of the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the People.

Of course anyone prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be unable to secure a license.

Of course the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. For all the OBVIOUS reasons.

In summary, your message is clear: The deaths by gun in America is a small price to pay for my right to own/possess a gun. Isn't that what all this comes down to, and all of your efforts to to argue against any form of gun control come down to the: "Ain't gun control awful"?

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration) as lacking basic human traits seen in the animal kingdom. A mother bear protects her cubs, a herd of elephants protects their young and human beings step up and put themselves in harms way to protect others of our species; yet your kind feel (an emotion) that their gun rights are under attack every time an act of mass murder by gun occurs, and that the need to curtail this form of violence cannot be proved to be efficacious.

See and read this links as evidence gun control laws are effective:

US Gun Control Policies - The Globalist

Gun Deaths: An American Prophet - The Globalist

Gun Control: US Gun Deaths - The Globalist

Gun Ownership: The US as World’s No. 1 - The Globalist

If you can post a rebuttal in response to these links. If you don't your credibility on the issue of guns, violence and laws is busted - for your posts become nothing more than an uninformed and biased set of opinions, as are those of the others who seem to have a fetish for guns.

Right from the first link….do you know that gun crime is increasing in all of those countries mentioned……and that is after the confiscations and extreme gun control?

That according to European police, guns are easily acquired by criminals and they prefer fully automatic military rifles on the Continent……..


So try to deal with the truth and reality…….

I don't believe you, post a source as I did!

Here is a list of the major shootings in Australia after the confiscation….notice how many of them could easily have been mass shootings….and the 3 that actually were mass shootings….

Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• 16 January 1998 to 15 June 2009 – Melbourne gangland killings – A series of 35 murders of crime figures and their associates that began with the slaying of Alphonse Gangitano in his home, most likely by Jason Moran, the latest victim being Des Moran who was murdered in Ascot Vale on 15 June 2009.

• 25 January 1996 – Hillcrest murders – Peter May shot and killed his three children, his estranged wife and her parents in the Brisbane suburb of Hillcrest before killing himself.[54]

• 16 August 1998 – Victorian police officers Gary Silk and Rodney Miller were shot dead in an ambush by Bendali Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts in the Moorabbin Police murders.

• 3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.

• 13 March 2000 – Millewa State Forest Murders – Barbara and Stephen Brooks and Stacie Willoughby were found dead, all three having been shot execution style and left in the forest.[60][61]

• 26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.
• • 14 October 2002 – Dr. Margret Tobin, the South Australian head of Mental Health Services, was shot dead by Jean Eric Gassy as she walked out of a lift in her office building.
  • 21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.
  • 25 October 2003 – Greenacre double murder – A man and a woman are shot dead in a house in the suburb of Greenacre, Sydney which was the result of a feud between two Middle Eastern crime families, 24-year-old Ziad Abdulrazak was shot 10 times in the chest and head and 22-year-old Mervat Hamka was shot twice in the neck while she slept in her bedroom, up to 100 shots were fired into the house from four men who were later arrested and convicted of the murders.
  • 26 July 2004 – Security guard Karen Brown shot dead armed robber William Aquilina in a Sydney carpark after he violently bashed her and stole the hotel's takings. Brown was charged with murder but acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.[66][67]

• 18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[71]

• 10 April 2010 – Rajesh Osborne shot and killed his three children, 12 year-old Asia, 10-year-old Jarius and 7-year-old Grace before killing himself in Roxburgh, Victoria.[citation needed]

• 28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.
• 1

• 29 January 2012 – Giovanni Focarelli, son of Comancheros gang member Vincenzo Focarelli, was shot dead whilst Vincenzo survived the fourth attempt on his life.[79]

• 28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[citation needed]

• 23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career criminal well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege at an East Keilor home in Melbourne's north west. During the siege, Binse fired several shots at police and refused to co-operate with negotiators; eventually tear gas had to be used to force him out of the house, at which point he refused to put down his weapon and was then sprayed with a volley of non-lethal bullets.[citation needed]

• 15 December 2012 – Aaron Carlino murdered drug dealer Stephen Cookson in his East Perth home by shooting him twice in the head and then he cut up and dismembered his body. He buried his arms legs and torso in the backyard of his house and he wrapped his head in a plastic bag and dumped it on Rottnest Island. The head of Cookson was later found washed up on Rottnest Island by an 11-year-old girl. Carlino was convicted of the murder and was sentenced to life in prison.[citation needed]
• 8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[citation needed]
• 29 July 2013 – Two bikie gang associates, Vasko Boskovski and Bassil Hijazi were shot dead in two separate shooting incidents minutes apart in South West Sydney. The previous week Bassil Hijazi had survived a previous attempt against his life after he was shot inside his car.[citation needed]

• 9 September 2014 – Lockhart massacre – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself on a farm in Lockhart in the Riverina district near Wagga Wagga New South Wales. The body of Geoff Hunt and a firearm are later found in a dam on the farm by police divers and a suicide note written by Geoff Hunt is also found inside the house on the farm.[citation needed]

• 22 October 2014 – Wedderburn shootings – Ian Jamieson shot dead Peter Lockhart, Peter's wife Mary and Mary's son Greg Holmes on two farm properties in Wedderburn, Victoria over a property dispute. Jamieson surrendered to police after a three-and-a-half hour siege.[citation needed]
• 7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. He was later captured and arrested by police after luring police on a high speed chase and crashing the car.[citation needed]

• 12 November 2014 – Jamie Edwards and Joelene Joyce a married couple who were drug dealers are found shot dead in a car on a highway in the town of Moama, New South Wales.[86]

• 15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]

• 27 June 2015 – Hermidale triple murder – the bodies of three people, two men and a woman are found shot dead on a property in a rural farming community in the town of Hermidale west of Nyngan, the bodies of 28-year-old Jacob Cumberland his father 59-year-old Stephen Cumberland and a 36-year-old woman were found with gun shot wounds, the body of Jacob Cumberland was found on the drive way of the property, the body of the 36-year-old woman was found in the backyard of the property and the body of Stephen Cumberland was found in a burnt out caravan on the property. 61-year-old Allan O'Connor is later arrested and charged with the murders.

• 10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.
• 2 October 2015 - 2015 Parramatta shooting On 2 October 2015, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a 15-year-old boy, shot and killed Curtis Cheng, an unarmed police civilian finance worker, outside the New South Wales Police Force headquarters in Parramatta, Australia. Jabar was subsequently shot and killed by special constables who were protecting the police station.

 

[2aguy]

And to focus on criminals getting guns….from above……in Australia…drive bys by gangs…

from 2013...drive bys in australia

Year of the gun: Sydney in grip of upswing in shooting crime

Another night, another drive-by killing. Sydney is effortlessly maintaining its reputation as the national capital of things that go bang in the night.


************

A volatile mix of bikie gangs, drugs, ethnic rivalries and a 265 per cent rise in the number of handgun thefts threatens to turn Sydney into the East LA on the western side of the Pacific.

NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione told a news conference on Tuesday: ''A lot of these young men are living the lives of wannabe gangsters and when you live the life of a wannabe gangster, unfortunately the reality is sometimes you will lose your life.''

Bassil Hijazi, 18, was shot dead in a public car park at Bexley on Monday night.

Only last year, Sydney's drive-bys seemed mainly crimes against property. Da Boyz would cruise by in the dead of night and spray a house in south-western and western Sydney. Somehow TV always managed to have some distraught neighbour saying it was only a matter of time before somebody was
\
I thought they banned hand guns…...

 

[waltky]

Toddsterpatriot's signature: Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal...

Math was hard for me when I was young an' dumb...

... and had a mind fulla mush...

... but as I got older, I left those childish ways an' got smarter...

... an' less lib'ral an' better at math...

... and now I do taxes.

 

[Sally Vater]

 

[M14 Shooter]

I find those who are so focused on their right not to be infringed (by laws as reasonable as licensing and registration)...

Glad to see you understand that licensing and registration are infringements.
Of course, we both know you have no sound argument as to why licensing and registration are necessary.
Absent a sound argument as their necessity, these infringements will fail any test of constitutionality.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JimBowie1958]

CumCatcher - You've been told that laws do not prevent crime at least a dozen times.
M14Shooter - And yet, you continue to push for laws with the supposed intent to do just that.

JimBowie - The better question is why would anyone propose a law that they think will not have any effect in preventing crime?

That's a stupid question. Most people obey the law, and I've explained why too often for anyone following gun threads not to notice - and that includes you.

So now you say that laws do prevent crime? Shit, will you make your fucking mind up already?

 

[suplex3000]

Shootings happen almost every week... This is truly the end of the world.