Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Levant]

Well that depends on how you define infringe. Many feel that infringe means that you can not take that right away but regulating it is acceptable. I happen to agree with that and I imagine you do as well if you were being honest. Hence my uzi sale to a 10 year old example.

infringe
[inˈfrinj]

VERB

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
   "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
   synonyms:
   contravene · violate · transgress · break · breach · commit a breach of · disobey · defy · flout · fly in the face of · ride roughshod over · kick against · fail to comply with ·
   [more]
   • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
     "his legal rights were being infringed" ·
     [more]
     synonyms:
     undermine · erode · diminish · weaken · impair · damage · compromise · limit · curb · check · place a limit on · encroach on · interfere with · disturb · disrupt · trespass on · impinge on · intrude on · enter · invade · barge in on · burst in on · entrench on

1. 1828 meaning:
   

   INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]
   
   1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
   
   2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
   
   3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

   Regulating infringes the right. Plain and simple.
   
   
   
   

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And there are limits on the Right to own and carry guns.....you can't use a gun to rob, rape and murder people.......we laws for that already....we don't need anymore.

There are limits on the Right to own and carry guns yet people still use guns to rob, rape and murder people. Maybe the laws we have are flawed?

The laws are flawed? Actually it's the people who don't follow the law who are flawed Maybe we should bring back the death penalty

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well that depends on how you define infringe. Many feel that infringe means that you can not take that right away but regulating it is acceptable. I happen to agree with that and I imagine you do as well if you were being honest. Hence my uzi sale to a 10 year old example.

infringe
[inˈfrinj]

VERB

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
   "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
   synonyms:
   contravene · violate · transgress · break · breach · commit a breach of · disobey · defy · flout · fly in the face of · ride roughshod over · kick against · fail to comply with ·
   [more]
   • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
     "his legal rights were being infringed" ·
     [more]
     synonyms:
     undermine · erode · diminish · weaken · impair · damage · compromise · limit · curb · check · place a limit on · encroach on · interfere with · disturb · disrupt · trespass on · impinge on · intrude on · enter · invade · barge in on · burst in on · entrench on

2. 1828 meaning:
   

   INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]
   
   1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
   
   2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
   
   3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

   Regulating infringes the right. Plain and simple.
   
   
   

He's playing ignorant

 

[Levant]

I can show good reasons for both. UBC is a better process than we currently have to prevent the legal sale of firearms to dangerous people who shouldn’t be owning guns. And Registration is a system that helps law enforcement trace guns that are used in crimes and promotes responsible gun ownership. Same concept that’s used with cars.

Who shouldn't own guns? So you're proposing registration as a means of search without a warrant - they already know what you have.

Are you suggesting that serial numbers of guns used in crimes can be recovered from the crime scene or videos?

 

[Levant]

I understand that you think we have all the laws we need but you didn’t answer my question. Do you think that gun regulation has ever stopped a person from getting a gun and committing a crime with it?

Would banning snowboards ever stop a person from being killed in a snowboard accident?

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

I don't know... what do you think?

I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.

Why shouldn’t he be able to buy the gun. It’s a god given right isn’t it?

He's not able to buy the gun due to the laws in place...the laws you support and want to expand.

Unless, of course, you want to apply an ideological filter to the law.

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

We already have back ground checks for gun stores...we don't need universal backgroundchecks......criminals already get most of their guns through straw buyers who can already pass any background check......

What harm to you see with universal background checks

My post #296 gives you the exact reasons universal background checks are an infringement on the Right to own and carry guns, and simply a backdoor way to get to gun registration, as well as ways to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Right...

You can't give any reason to support universal background checks.

I think it’s a much cleaner and more efficient system to have universal BG checks. That’s a pretty simple and basic reason. I imagine if pressed you also wouldn’t technically have a problem with registration except for the fact that you think it is the step that leads to confiscation. Am I right?

Why do you think the government needs to know what people own?

I think for the same reasons cars require a licensed driver and registration. There is a purpose for that and it is public safety.

Again....cars are not connected to a Right..... a Right one political party wants to end...and to end it they need to know who owns the guns and where they are.

I’m not talking about rights I’m talking about purpose which was the question

Universal Background checks do nothing...

Method, source, and process used to obtain the firearm Among prisoners who possessed a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were imprisoned and who reported the source from which they obtained it, the most common source (43%) was off-the-street or the underground market (table 5). Another 7% of state and 5% of federal prisoners stole the firearm, and 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners reported that they obtained the firearm at the location of the crime.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

You’re link only showed that about 50% of guns were obtained illegally. You do realize that leaves another 50% don’t you?

You understand that there are over a 100 million guns in the US that are used for legal purposes, don't you?

Why would you infringe up the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms arms because gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in Democrat controlled big city shitholes would use mostly illegally required firearms for criminal purposes?

You know that the Constitution says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, don't you? I shit you not. Go look it up.

It’s not my intent to infringe in the rights of the innocent. Good responsible people should have to right to bare arms. It’s the dangerous and irresponsible That’s shouldn’t get guns... wouldn’t you agree?

 

[2aguy]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

I don't know... what do you think?

I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.

Why shouldn’t he be able to buy the gun. It’s a god given right isn’t it?

He's not able to buy the gun due to the laws in place...the laws you support and want to expand.

Unless, of course, you want to apply an ideological filter to the law.

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

We already have back ground checks for gun stores...we don't need universal backgroundchecks......criminals already get most of their guns through straw buyers who can already pass any background check......

What harm to you see with universal background checks

My post #296 gives you the exact reasons universal background checks are an infringement on the Right to own and carry guns, and simply a backdoor way to get to gun registration, as well as ways to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Right...

You can't give any reason to support universal background checks.

I think it’s a much cleaner and more efficient system to have universal BG checks. That’s a pretty simple and basic reason. I imagine if pressed you also wouldn’t technically have a problem with registration except for the fact that you think it is the step that leads to confiscation. Am I right?

Why do you think the government needs to know what people own?

I think for the same reasons cars require a licensed driver and registration. There is a purpose for that and it is public safety.

Again....cars are not connected to a Right..... a Right one political party wants to end...and to end it they need to know who owns the guns and where they are.

I’m not talking about rights I’m talking about purpose which was the question

Universal Background checks do nothing...

Method, source, and process used to obtain the firearm Among prisoners who possessed a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were imprisoned and who reported the source from which they obtained it, the most common source (43%) was off-the-street or the underground market (table 5). Another 7% of state and 5% of federal prisoners stole the firearm, and 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners reported that they obtained the firearm at the location of the crime.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

You’re link only showed that about 50% of guns were obtained illegally. You do realize that leaves another 50% don’t you?

You understand that there are over a 100 million guns in the US that are used for legal purposes, don't you?

Why would you infringe up the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms arms because gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in Democrat controlled big city shitholes would use mostly illegally required firearms for criminal purposes?

You know that the Constitution says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, don't you? I shit you not. Go look it up.

It’s not my intent to infringe in the rights of the innocent. Good responsible people should have to right to bare arms. It’s the dangerous and irresponsible That’s shouldn’t get guns... wouldn’t you agree?

Yep...and we already have all the laws we need to arrest them and put them in jail....then, the democrat party judges and prosecutors as well as politicians let them back out again....over and over again, no matter how violent and no matter how many illegal gun crimes they commit.

 

[Levant]

We already have the one of the largest prison populations in the world. I don't think more prisons are the answer unless you're in China.

We have more people in prison just exactly because we're so soft on them. They're treated too well in prison and stay for too short of a time. For groups of society for whom male bonding and being tough is more important than being a father and a husband, the modern prison environment is completely acceptable to them.

Prison should be hell on earth. And sentences from 20 to life for robbery or rape. Life without parole for murder. Death in certain cases. Prison populations would drop. It took generations to create the mess and to teach black and brown youth to commit crimes on behalf of the Democrats and communists; it will take a generation to clean it up. But I guarantee you that as soon as prisons are hellholes again and as soon as every thug thinking of robbing a gas station understands that getting caught will get him life in prison, in less than a generation crime will virtually disappear. It will take 50 years for the prisons to empty but empty they will.

 

[Levant]

Is that right? So let me ask you. If somebody goes to jail for murder should they be allowed to take a gun with them to prison? Should they be able to get one Rightafter they are released?

No, they can't take a gun with them to prison. Yes, when they get out they should be able to buy a gun on their way home - or the guns they had before prison are already waiting for them. That's how it was for the first 150 years in this country. That is clearly original intent.

 

[2aguy]

We already have the one of the largest prison populations in the world. I don't think more prisons are the answer unless you're in China.

We have more people in prison just exactly because we're so soft on them. They're treated too well in prison and stay for too short of a time. For groups of society for whom male bonding and being tough is more important than being a father and a husband, the modern prison environment is completely acceptable to them.

Prison should be hell on earth. And sentences from 20 to life for robbery or rape. Life without parole for murder. Death in certain cases. Prison populations would drop. It took generations to create the mess and to teach black and brown youth to commit crimes on behalf of the Democrats and communists; it will take a generation to clean it up. But I guarantee you that as soon as prisons are hellholes again and as soon as every thug thinking of robbing a gas station understands that getting caught will get him life in prison, in less than a generation crime will virtually disappear. It will take 50 years for the prisons to empty but empty they will.

slade and alang don't care about gun crime. If they did, they would focus on actual criminals......keeping them in prison so they don't get out and shoot people. What they care about is taking guns away from Americans.....

 

[Levant]

You should stop with the Ad hominem
what rights do you keep when you murder someone?

Do you lose the right to a trial by jury of your peers if you murder someone? Do you lose the right to an attorney? Do you lose the right against self-incrimination? Do you lose the right to free speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom of peaceful assembly? If you have committed a murder, does your family also lose all of those rights?

I don't understand why so many so-called, self-proclaimed, conservatives or constitutionalists think that the right to keep and bear arms is the one right that can be stripped from someone who has paid their debt and released from jail or prison or from the family of someone who has paid their debt and released from jail or prison.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You should stop with the Ad hominem
what rights do you keep when you murder someone?

Do you lose the right to a trial by jury of your peers if you murder someone? Do you lose the right to an attorney? Do you lose the right against self-incrimination? Do you lose the right to free speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom of peaceful assembly? If you have committed a murder, does your family also lose all of those rights?

I don't understand why so many so-called, self-proclaimed, conservatives or constitutionalists think that the right to keep and bear arms is the one right that can be stripped from someone who has paid their debt and released from jail or prison or from the family of someone who has paid their debt and released from jail or prison.

You lose your rights while you're in prison
People who have been released and paid their debt should regain all rights

 

[Flash]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

I don't know... what do you think?

I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.

Why shouldn’t he be able to buy the gun. It’s a god given right isn’t it?

He's not able to buy the gun due to the laws in place...the laws you support and want to expand.

Unless, of course, you want to apply an ideological filter to the law.

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

We already have back ground checks for gun stores...we don't need universal backgroundchecks......criminals already get most of their guns through straw buyers who can already pass any background check......

What harm to you see with universal background checks

My post #296 gives you the exact reasons universal background checks are an infringement on the Right to own and carry guns, and simply a backdoor way to get to gun registration, as well as ways to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Right...

You can't give any reason to support universal background checks.

I think it’s a much cleaner and more efficient system to have universal BG checks. That’s a pretty simple and basic reason. I imagine if pressed you also wouldn’t technically have a problem with registration except for the fact that you think it is the step that leads to confiscation. Am I right?

Why do you think the government needs to know what people own?

I think for the same reasons cars require a licensed driver and registration. There is a purpose for that and it is public safety.

Again....cars are not connected to a Right..... a Right one political party wants to end...and to end it they need to know who owns the guns and where they are.

I’m not talking about rights I’m talking about purpose which was the question

Universal Background checks do nothing...

Method, source, and process used to obtain the firearm Among prisoners who possessed a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were imprisoned and who reported the source from which they obtained it, the most common source (43%) was off-the-street or the underground market (table 5). Another 7% of state and 5% of federal prisoners stole the firearm, and 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners reported that they obtained the firearm at the location of the crime.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

You’re link only showed that about 50% of guns were obtained illegally. You do realize that leaves another 50% don’t you?

You understand that there are over a 100 million guns in the US that are used for legal purposes, don't you?

Why would you infringe up the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms arms because gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in Democrat controlled big city shitholes would use mostly illegally required firearms for criminal purposes?

You know that the Constitution says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, don't you? I shit you not. Go look it up.

It’s not my intent to infringe in the rights of the innocent. Good responsible people should have to right to bare arms. It’s the dangerous and irresponsible That’s shouldn’t get guns... wouldn’t you agree?

Don't lie. It just makes you look like an idiot to go down that path.

If you put restrictions on who can own a firearm, if you restrict the kind of firearms, if you require government permission before getting a firearm and if you create requirements for firearm use then you are sure as hell doing some serious infringing.

The Constitution is very specific. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't be credible when you stick your head up your ass and claim that infringements are not infringements.

 

[Levant]

Anyone who has a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to a complex problem is deluding themselves.

Which is why you guys who only focus on guns are so wrong. The real solution is fixing fatherless homes.....they are the root cause of crime and poverty......but that has nothing to do with keeping people from owning guns so you guys couldn't care less....

The real solution is fixing fatherless homes, racism, poverty, education, affordable health care, affordable housing, AND easy access to guns for those who should not have access to them.

Limiting easy access.. But what about harder access? If you make it hard you don't make it impossible. Your idea is full of holes. It does nothing at all to stop crime.

In fact, almost no violations of the law by lying on the 4473 ever gets prosecuted.

Very few who may have lied trying to buy guns are investigated or charged, study finds

Federal investigators found that only a few people rejected for buying guns during backgrounds checks are charged with falsifying their applications

www.usatoday.com

As 2aguy has repeatedly told you, the problem is lack of enforcement of existing laws.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

I don't know... what do you think?

I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.

Why shouldn’t he be able to buy the gun. It’s a god given right isn’t it?

He's not able to buy the gun due to the laws in place...the laws you support and want to expand.

Unless, of course, you want to apply an ideological filter to the law.

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

We already have back ground checks for gun stores...we don't need universal backgroundchecks......criminals already get most of their guns through straw buyers who can already pass any background check......

What harm to you see with universal background checks

My post #296 gives you the exact reasons universal background checks are an infringement on the Right to own and carry guns, and simply a backdoor way to get to gun registration, as well as ways to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Right...

You can't give any reason to support universal background checks.

I think it’s a much cleaner and more efficient system to have universal BG checks. That’s a pretty simple and basic reason. I imagine if pressed you also wouldn’t technically have a problem with registration except for the fact that you think it is the step that leads to confiscation. Am I right?

Why do you think the government needs to know what people own?

I think for the same reasons cars require a licensed driver and registration. There is a purpose for that and it is public safety.

Again....cars are not connected to a Right..... a Right one political party wants to end...and to end it they need to know who owns the guns and where they are.

I’m not talking about rights I’m talking about purpose which was the question

Universal Background checks do nothing...

Method, source, and process used to obtain the firearm Among prisoners who possessed a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were imprisoned and who reported the source from which they obtained it, the most common source (43%) was off-the-street or the underground market (table 5). Another 7% of state and 5% of federal prisoners stole the firearm, and 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners reported that they obtained the firearm at the location of the crime.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

You’re link only showed that about 50% of guns were obtained illegally. You do realize that leaves another 50% don’t you?

You understand that there are over a 100 million guns in the US that are used for legal purposes, don't you?

Why would you infringe up the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms arms because gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in Democrat controlled big city shitholes would use mostly illegally required firearms for criminal purposes?

You know that the Constitution says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, don't you? I shit you not. Go look it up.

It’s not my intent to infringe in the rights of the innocent. Good responsible people should have to right to bare arms. It’s the dangerous and irresponsible That’s shouldn’t get guns... wouldn’t you agree?

Don't lie. It just makes you look like an idiot to go down that path.

If you put restrictions on who can own a firearm, if you restrict the kind of firearms, if you require government permission before getting a firearm and if you create requirements for firearm use then you are sure as hell doing some serious infringing.

The Constitution is very specific. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't be credible when you stick your head up your ass and claim that infringements are not infringements.

I marvel at the morons who claim the 2nd Amendment allows the government to place "reasonable restrictions" on firearms. Nowhere does it say that. Furthermore, there's nothing reasonable about the restrictions they want to impose.

 

[Levant]

A cannon, by definition, is not a "gun", it's an artillary weapon. Better a cannon than a handgun. Nobody has shot their spouse in an angry moment with a cannon. You can't get pissed off at your boss and go postal with a cannon. Children are unlikely to find the cannon and accidentally shoot their best friend, or their mom.

Oh, we're going by definitions?

A cannon is a type of gun...

When you start off with a lie, everything that follows may be safely discarded as worthless.

She always starts by saying something stupid and then she google it. She's got it backwards.

 

[Flash]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

I don't know... what do you think?

I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.

Why shouldn’t he be able to buy the gun. It’s a god given right isn’t it?

He's not able to buy the gun due to the laws in place...the laws you support and want to expand.

Unless, of course, you want to apply an ideological filter to the law.

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

We already have back ground checks for gun stores...we don't need universal backgroundchecks......criminals already get most of their guns through straw buyers who can already pass any background check......

What harm to you see with universal background checks

My post #296 gives you the exact reasons universal background checks are an infringement on the Right to own and carry guns, and simply a backdoor way to get to gun registration, as well as ways to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Right...

You can't give any reason to support universal background checks.

I think it’s a much cleaner and more efficient system to have universal BG checks. That’s a pretty simple and basic reason. I imagine if pressed you also wouldn’t technically have a problem with registration except for the fact that you think it is the step that leads to confiscation. Am I right?

Why do you think the government needs to know what people own?

I think for the same reasons cars require a licensed driver and registration. There is a purpose for that and it is public safety.

Again....cars are not connected to a Right..... a Right one political party wants to end...and to end it they need to know who owns the guns and where they are.

I’m not talking about rights I’m talking about purpose which was the question

Universal Background checks do nothing...

Method, source, and process used to obtain the firearm Among prisoners who possessed a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were imprisoned and who reported the source from which they obtained it, the most common source (43%) was off-the-street or the underground market (table 5). Another 7% of state and 5% of federal prisoners stole the firearm, and 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners reported that they obtained the firearm at the location of the crime.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

You’re link only showed that about 50% of guns were obtained illegally. You do realize that leaves another 50% don’t you?

You understand that there are over a 100 million guns in the US that are used for legal purposes, don't you?

Why would you infringe up the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms arms because gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in Democrat controlled big city shitholes would use mostly illegally required firearms for criminal purposes?

You know that the Constitution says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, don't you? I shit you not. Go look it up.

It’s not my intent to infringe in the rights of the innocent. Good responsible people should have to right to bare arms. It’s the dangerous and irresponsible That’s shouldn’t get guns... wouldn’t you agree?

Don't lie. It just makes you look like an idiot to go down that path.

If you put restrictions on who can own a firearm, if you restrict the kind of firearms, if you require government permission before getting a firearm and if you create requirements for firearm use then you are sure as hell doing some serious infringing.

The Constitution is very specific. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't be credible when you stick your head up your ass and claim that infringements are not infringements.

I marvel at the morons who claim the 2nd Amendment allows the government to place "reasonable restrictions" on firearms. Nowhere does it say that. Furthermore, there's nothing reasonable about the restrictions they want to impose.

That is why we can't trust Liberals when it comes to Constitutional rights. They are not reasonable. As an example just look at how oppressive that New York SAFE Act is. It was touted by the lying Liberals as being "reasonable" but it is far from being reasonable by any definition.

For instance, a decorated veteran in NY was arrested because he had an empty 30 round magazine in the trunk of his car. No gun, no ammo just an empty magazine. A magazine that is legally owned by millions of Americans. Another veteran had the jack booted government thugs come to house and take his firearms because he had visited a doctor about having insomnia. Under the SAFE Act the doctor reported his "mental illness" to the government and then deemed him a threat. A mother from Texas just passing through the sate traveling with her young child was arrested because she had a legally bought handgun for protection in her car. That is the kind of oppressive infringements the filthy Liberals think are reasonable.

 

[Levant]

alang1216 obviously believe that the SC can make the Constitution say whatever they want. People like him are the reason this country is so fucked up.

Unfortunately, so does the Supreme Court.

 

[bripat9643]

alang1216 obviously believe that the SC can make the Constitution say whatever they want. People like him are the reason this country is so fucked up.

Unfortunately, so does the Supreme Court.

Only the douchebags in the court believe that.

 

[Levant]

It’s not my intent to infringe in the rights of the innocent. Good responsible people should have to right to bare arms. It’s the dangerous and irresponsible That’s shouldn’t get guns... wouldn’t you agree?

It's absolutely your intent to infringe on the rights of the innocent.

You can't keep the irresponsible from getting guns if they want them. The question is, why would we let a violent, dangerous, criminal out on the streets? If, through their criminal acts, they have demonstrated that they are a danger to society, they belong in prison and then there's no opportunity for them to get a gun (now you'll show me a link where a prisoner got a gun).

Why were any of these people on the street?

Man accused of knocking 92-year-old woman to ground in NYC has been arrested over 100 times since 2005

A man arrested for allegedly shoving a 92-year-old woman and knocking her to the ground has a rap sheet consisting of over 100 arrests.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Man arrested 100 times sentenced to prison, barred from Target, Safeway, Fred Meyer, Home Depot, Winco stores

A man arrested more than 100 times for stealing repeatedly from several area retail stores has been sentenced to just over one-and-a-half years in prison.

www.kptv.com

NYC subway thief thanks Democrats after his 139th arrest, release: 'Bail reform, it’s lit!'

A New York City man who’s now been arrested 139 times thanked Democrats for guaranteeing his immediate release despite repeatedly swiping hundreds of dollars from unsuspecting subway commuters since the state’s new bail reform law went into effect Jan. 1.

www.foxnews.com