Democrat defends criminals who carry illegal guns while pushing to punish legal gun owners.....

[pknopp]

By Limiting where Legal Carry Permit holders can carry

I guess I completely missed that. Have the quote? All the same, there should be NO such thing as a "permit" holder. If you have to get the government approval, you do not have the right.

 

[2aguy]

Good question. I'm not going to argue against it. But still, you started a rant over someone that argued against making gun laws retroactive. Why?

No....I made an argument against a guy who wants to increase gun control laws on normal gun owners but wants to give a free pass to actual criminals, walking around with illegal guns.....

You forgot that....the actual point...

 

[Kilroy2]

Democrats do not want to punish criminals who use guns. Sounds like a self serving argument.

Then claim that they want to increase penalties to law abiding gun owners.

So if they are law abiding gun owners, exactly what penalties are being enforced.

Oh gun safety laws, seems to be an inconvenience. Securing your weapon so that no one can borrow it is a problem.?

 

[Failzero]

Democrats do not want to punish criminals who use guns. Sounds like a self serving argument.

Then claim that they want to increase penalties to law abiding gun owners.

So if they are law abiding gun owners, exactly what penalties are being enforced.

Oh gun safety laws, seems to be an inconvenience. Securing your weapon so that no one can borrow it is a problem.?

In California it’s illegal to ( give a friend Ammo ) ( Loan a Firearm to a Friend ) ( do a FTF sale ) ...

 

[pknopp]

No....I made an argument against a guy who wants to increase gun control laws on normal gun owners but wants to give a free pass to actual criminals, walking around with illegal guns.....

You forgot that....the actual point...

He wants people to not be able to leave guns laying around kids. You know, reasonable people also support that?

 

[2aguy]

He wants people to not be able to leave guns laying around kids. You know, reasonable people also support that?

I support that.....I don't support locking people up over it........

Again......since drugs and chemicals in the home kill thousands of kids each year, vs. the small number killed in gun accidents......should people be required, by law, with fines and prison sentences, to lock up prescription meds and all house chemicals?

 

[2aguy]

Democrats do not want to punish criminals who use guns. Sounds like a self serving argument.

Then claim that they want to increase penalties to law abiding gun owners.

So if they are law abiding gun owners, exactly what penalties are being enforced.

Oh gun safety laws, seems to be an inconvenience. Securing your weapon so that no one can borrow it is a problem.?

He states it in the article.......criminals with illegal guns should not be punished...that is where he stands.

 

[pknopp]

I support that.....I don't support locking people up over it........

Again......since drugs and chemicals in the home kill thousands of kids each year, vs. the small number killed in gun accidents......should people be required, by law, with fines and prison sentences, to lock up prescription meds and all house chemicals?

No one is going to prison unless a kid actually gets hold of a gun and does damage. Do I support holding a parent accountable for that? Yes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A argument to the contrary can be made. Just like how we can restrict speech with kids.

It cannot.

Heller:
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional

The legal requirement to secure your firearms fails constitutional muster, under any standard of scrutiny.
The text of the ruling does not allow for an exception for children in the house, and in any case, the court, in Bruen , threw out any argument regarding means-end scrutiny with regard to the right to keep an bear arms.

 

[Circe]

Well I guess if you want to turn law abiding folks into criminals.

They do.

Duh.

 

[pknopp]

It cannot.

Heller:
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional

The legal requirement to secure your firearms fails constitutional muster, under any standard of scrutiny.
The text of the ruling does not allow for an exception for children in the house, and in any case, the court, in Bruen , threw out any argument regarding means-end scrutiny with regard to the right to keep an bear arms.

I never argued for any ban. Not a one. I support a person's right to carry automatic weapons.

 

[Failzero]

I never argued for any ban. Not a one. I support a person's right to carry automatic weapons.

Do you support Carry Permit reciprocity for all States ?

 

[pknopp]

Do you support Carry Permit reciprocity for all States ?

No. I am against the idea of having to get any governments permission to carry.

Approving these laws are ceding your rights to the government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I never argued for any ban.

You DID , however, state an argument for the constitutionality of a legal requirement to secure your firearms can be made.

It cannot, as I demonstrated.

I accept your concession of that point.

 

[pknopp]

You DID , however, state an argument for the constitutionality of a legal requirement to secur eyour firarms can be made.

I said a law to keep guns out of kids hands is not some extreme position.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I said a law to keep guns out of kids hands is not some extreme position.

No. You did not.

I stated:
A legal requirement that they (lock up their guns) violates the constitution

You responded
A argument to the contrary can be made.

It cannot, as I demonstrated.

I accept your concession.

 

[pknopp]

No. You did not.

I stated:
A legal requirement that they (lock up their guns) violates the constitution

You responded
A argument to the contrary can be made.

It cannot, as I demonstrated.

I accept your concession.

Context....we were discussing the Senators position. I was not discussing some general idea. You responded to that.

 

[2aguy]

It cannot.

Heller:
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional

The legal requirement to secure your firearms fails constitutional muster, under any standard of scrutiny.
The text of the ruling does not allow for an exception for children in the house, and in any case, the court, in Bruen , threw out any argument regarding means-end scrutiny with regard to the right to keep an bear arms.

Yep..........

 

[badbob85037]

I'm confused here..........if you want to condemn the mayor OK BUT.........the laws backed earlier by Senator Winfield that the website condemn as "gun control" are not. He supported laws to keep your gun locked up when not in your control and the banning of people creating guns with no registration numbers. Hardly extreme positions.

These bills would require guns to be stored in locked containers in homes with minors, prohibit the manufacturing of firearms without serial numbers and “ghost guns,” and require pistols and firearms in unattended motor vehicles to be locked and secured.

Now he is against making it illegal to own guns that you purchased before a law went in place and he is going to get condemned for that?

he’s also been cool to the idea of expanding the state’s current “assault weapons” ban to include those who lawfully purchased their firearms before the ban took effect.

Really? That's a bad thing?

Now he is also against some "vaguely worded" law and that's bad?

I think we can see where the problem actually lies here if you actually click on the internal links.

One thing about these goodie two shoes gun grabbers The can talk and talk on a subject they know nothing about. They don't impress me and I don't think they impress anyone else either. So when they talk I don't listen. That type of information is like loading saw dust into your brain through your ears

 

[Doc7505]

If you wish to give kids access to your guns lying around, I don't think I would brag on that.

~~~~~~
Perhaps this will work for you.....

​