Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
33,898
Reaction score
3,991
Points
1,140
Only through licensed dealers....the system we currently have....and only if we can get the same data base the cops use and make background check instant. No reason that with the tech we have that we can't do that.

Felons should be restricted and we can discuss for how long after they are off of parole...

With my plan, however, violent gun criminals would be serving 30 years for any crime.... real crime.....committed with a gun.....and attempted murder or murder with a gun would be life...but preferably the death penalty...

So...... embezzle money and become a felon...lose your right to own a gun till your time is served....use a gun for rape, robbery or murder.......you go away minimum 30 years....no parole.
So, you agree with Slade3200 that reasonable restrictions and infringements are OK. Your only disagreement with him and O'Rourke are what infringements are reasonable.
Reasonable restrictions are not okay. But we need to stop the forward movement before we can take ground back. We can't get Republicans to pass national carry, how do you think we are going to get them to back ending current federal background checks at gun stores....?
Booooo, you’re backing off you earlier argument that felons should not be able to buy guns. That’s weak, I was looking for a good debate
Nope....... a guy who is a felon for embezzling money isn't the same as a guy who uses a gun for rape, robbery or murder.....

Again, here is my plan for actual criminals who use guns for crime....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..
Why shouldn’t gang members be allowed to walk around with a gun in their pants? Isn’t that their right? And to be clear you are supporting banning violent felons from owning guns right?

Under my plan they would be in jail.....so it becomes a non issue. If democrats let them out they should not be able to own or carry a gun.....and should be arrested and jailed if they do....
Thanks for clearing that up. Where does the constitution allow for released felons to be stripped of their rights to bare arms? Wouldn’t that be infringement?
5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In other words, you can be deprived of your rights with due process of law.
Kudos! You actually made a substantive non trolling argument... well done! Keep it up
So that's all you have to say?
Yeah, it was a good argument. What else do you want me to say?
an argument you were proven to be wrong and lacking
If you say so
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
77,512
Reaction score
8,699
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Only through licensed dealers....the system we currently have....and only if we can get the same data base the cops use and make background check instant. No reason that with the tech we have that we can't do that.

Felons should be restricted and we can discuss for how long after they are off of parole...

With my plan, however, violent gun criminals would be serving 30 years for any crime.... real crime.....committed with a gun.....and attempted murder or murder with a gun would be life...but preferably the death penalty...

So...... embezzle money and become a felon...lose your right to own a gun till your time is served....use a gun for rape, robbery or murder.......you go away minimum 30 years....no parole.
So, you agree with Slade3200 that reasonable restrictions and infringements are OK. Your only disagreement with him and O'Rourke are what infringements are reasonable.
Reasonable restrictions are not okay. But we need to stop the forward movement before we can take ground back. We can't get Republicans to pass national carry, how do you think we are going to get them to back ending current federal background checks at gun stores....?
Booooo, you’re backing off you earlier argument that felons should not be able to buy guns. That’s weak, I was looking for a good debate
Nope....... a guy who is a felon for embezzling money isn't the same as a guy who uses a gun for rape, robbery or murder.....

Again, here is my plan for actual criminals who use guns for crime....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..
Why shouldn’t gang members be allowed to walk around with a gun in their pants? Isn’t that their right? And to be clear you are supporting banning violent felons from owning guns right?

Under my plan they would be in jail.....so it becomes a non issue. If democrats let them out they should not be able to own or carry a gun.....and should be arrested and jailed if they do....
Thanks for clearing that up. Where does the constitution allow for released felons to be stripped of their rights to bare arms? Wouldn’t that be infringement?
5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In other words, you can be deprived of your rights with due process of law.
Kudos! You actually made a substantive non trolling argument... well done! Keep it up
So that's all you have to say?
Yeah, it was a good argument. What else do you want me to say?
an argument you were proven to be wrong and lacking
If you say so
Yes I say so
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
33,898
Reaction score
3,991
Points
1,140
Only through licensed dealers....the system we currently have....and only if we can get the same data base the cops use and make background check instant. No reason that with the tech we have that we can't do that.

Felons should be restricted and we can discuss for how long after they are off of parole...

With my plan, however, violent gun criminals would be serving 30 years for any crime.... real crime.....committed with a gun.....and attempted murder or murder with a gun would be life...but preferably the death penalty...

So...... embezzle money and become a felon...lose your right to own a gun till your time is served....use a gun for rape, robbery or murder.......you go away minimum 30 years....no parole.
So, you agree with Slade3200 that reasonable restrictions and infringements are OK. Your only disagreement with him and O'Rourke are what infringements are reasonable.
Reasonable restrictions are not okay. But we need to stop the forward movement before we can take ground back. We can't get Republicans to pass national carry, how do you think we are going to get them to back ending current federal background checks at gun stores....?
Booooo, you’re backing off you earlier argument that felons should not be able to buy guns. That’s weak, I was looking for a good debate
Nope....... a guy who is a felon for embezzling money isn't the same as a guy who uses a gun for rape, robbery or murder.....

Again, here is my plan for actual criminals who use guns for crime....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..
Why shouldn’t gang members be allowed to walk around with a gun in their pants? Isn’t that their right? And to be clear you are supporting banning violent felons from owning guns right?

Under my plan they would be in jail.....so it becomes a non issue. If democrats let them out they should not be able to own or carry a gun.....and should be arrested and jailed if they do....
Thanks for clearing that up. Where does the constitution allow for released felons to be stripped of their rights to bare arms? Wouldn’t that be infringement?
5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In other words, you can be deprived of your rights with due process of law.
Kudos! You actually made a substantive non trolling argument... well done! Keep it up
So that's all you have to say?
Yeah, it was a good argument. What else do you want me to say?
an argument you were proven to be wrong and lacking
If you say so
Yes I say so
Haha. Ok glad that’s settled then. Time for your nap now. Don’t forget to take your meds
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
77,512
Reaction score
8,699
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Only through licensed dealers....the system we currently have....and only if we can get the same data base the cops use and make background check instant. No reason that with the tech we have that we can't do that.

Felons should be restricted and we can discuss for how long after they are off of parole...

With my plan, however, violent gun criminals would be serving 30 years for any crime.... real crime.....committed with a gun.....and attempted murder or murder with a gun would be life...but preferably the death penalty...

So...... embezzle money and become a felon...lose your right to own a gun till your time is served....use a gun for rape, robbery or murder.......you go away minimum 30 years....no parole.
So, you agree with Slade3200 that reasonable restrictions and infringements are OK. Your only disagreement with him and O'Rourke are what infringements are reasonable.
Reasonable restrictions are not okay. But we need to stop the forward movement before we can take ground back. We can't get Republicans to pass national carry, how do you think we are going to get them to back ending current federal background checks at gun stores....?
Booooo, you’re backing off you earlier argument that felons should not be able to buy guns. That’s weak, I was looking for a good debate
Nope....... a guy who is a felon for embezzling money isn't the same as a guy who uses a gun for rape, robbery or murder.....

Again, here is my plan for actual criminals who use guns for crime....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..
Why shouldn’t gang members be allowed to walk around with a gun in their pants? Isn’t that their right? And to be clear you are supporting banning violent felons from owning guns right?

Under my plan they would be in jail.....so it becomes a non issue. If democrats let them out they should not be able to own or carry a gun.....and should be arrested and jailed if they do....
Thanks for clearing that up. Where does the constitution allow for released felons to be stripped of their rights to bare arms? Wouldn’t that be infringement?
5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In other words, you can be deprived of your rights with due process of law.
Kudos! You actually made a substantive non trolling argument... well done! Keep it up
So that's all you have to say?
Yeah, it was a good argument. What else do you want me to say?
an argument you were proven to be wrong and lacking
If you say so
Yes I say so
Haha. Ok glad that’s settled then. Time for your nap now. Don’t forget to take your meds
son I don't take naps I outgrew those 50+ years ago.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
60,416
Reaction score
10,177
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
I'm not smoking anything. Maybe I should so I can understand your post.
Oh really? You mean there ain't no smoking gun with your fingerprints on it?

You're telling me a cop is taking your fingerprints at a gun sale to register your "lawfully" purchased Firearms for any other reason than to put you in prison? No. They hold even a legal gun purchase against you like a felony on your record the rest of your life.
I live in Kentucky, a rational state. No fingerprints required for a firearms purchase. Minimum age 18 for a handgun, no minimum age for shotguns or rifles.

This will make Slade3200 freak out.
Why would I freak out about that?
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?
Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.
I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?
You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.
Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans
The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said
Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.
All veterans? So every veteran was to be flagged and treated like a potential terrorist? Is that your claim?
Let's read what it says, shall we?

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

...

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

...

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
Does that sound like the Obama Administration trusted veterans? Because, you know, obviously -- they didn't.
Oh look at that, he wasn’t talking about all vets he was talking about those having problems re-emerging into society After returning from battle. Crazy how things change we we look at the actual words and not your warped characterizations. Have you ever seen stats on suicide rates and PTSD that these poor soles experience? Now look at you trying to politicize them to mischaracterized Obama’s legitimate concern. That’s pretty sad
Oh, look at that, you're sucking Obama's ass.

Veteran's organizations, who care about veterans far more than you and Obama do, said the memo was bullshit and insulting to veterans. And Napolitano herself apologized for the report.

Your whole "IM NOT A DEMOCRAT" schtick would have a lot more traction if you didn't regurgitate Democrat bullshit.
Frankly I have no clue what talking points Dems use. This was the first time I’ve seen that memo and I gave my thoughts about it after I read it. Where was I wrong?
Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Ow. I rolled my eyes so hard I saw my optic nerves.
good for you... why do you care so much to label me as a democrat anyways? It’s kind of a weird obsession
You'd freak out because people are allowed to buy weapons in Kentucky without the permission of the government.

And you seem to take being called a Democrat pretty personally. If you're not, what's the problem?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
127,677
Reaction score
21,175
Points
2,180
Only through licensed dealers....the system we currently have....and only if we can get the same data base the cops use and make background check instant. No reason that with the tech we have that we can't do that.

Felons should be restricted and we can discuss for how long after they are off of parole...

With my plan, however, violent gun criminals would be serving 30 years for any crime.... real crime.....committed with a gun.....and attempted murder or murder with a gun would be life...but preferably the death penalty...

So...... embezzle money and become a felon...lose your right to own a gun till your time is served....use a gun for rape, robbery or murder.......you go away minimum 30 years....no parole.
So, you agree with Slade3200 that reasonable restrictions and infringements are OK. Your only disagreement with him and O'Rourke are what infringements are reasonable.
Reasonable restrictions are not okay. But we need to stop the forward movement before we can take ground back. We can't get Republicans to pass national carry, how do you think we are going to get them to back ending current federal background checks at gun stores....?
Booooo, you’re backing off you earlier argument that felons should not be able to buy guns. That’s weak, I was looking for a good debate
Nope....... a guy who is a felon for embezzling money isn't the same as a guy who uses a gun for rape, robbery or murder.....

Again, here is my plan for actual criminals who use guns for crime....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..
Why shouldn’t gang members be allowed to walk around with a gun in their pants? Isn’t that their right? And to be clear you are supporting banning violent felons from owning guns right?

Under my plan they would be in jail.....so it becomes a non issue. If democrats let them out they should not be able to own or carry a gun.....and should be arrested and jailed if they do....
Thanks for clearing that up. Where does the constitution allow for released felons to be stripped of their rights to bare arms? Wouldn’t that be infringement?
5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In other words, you can be deprived of your rights with due process of law.
Kudos! You actually made a substantive non trolling argument... well done! Keep it up
So that's all you have to say?
Yeah, it was a good argument. What else do you want me to say?
an argument you were proven to be wrong and lacking
If you say so
Yes I say so
Haha. Ok glad that’s settled then. Time for your nap now. Don’t forget to take your meds
son I don't take naps I outgrew those 50+ years ago.
I'm just starting to learn to like them.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
33,898
Reaction score
3,991
Points
1,140
I'm not smoking anything. Maybe I should so I can understand your post.
Oh really? You mean there ain't no smoking gun with your fingerprints on it?

You're telling me a cop is taking your fingerprints at a gun sale to register your "lawfully" purchased Firearms for any other reason than to put you in prison? No. They hold even a legal gun purchase against you like a felony on your record the rest of your life.
I live in Kentucky, a rational state. No fingerprints required for a firearms purchase. Minimum age 18 for a handgun, no minimum age for shotguns or rifles.

This will make Slade3200 freak out.
Why would I freak out about that?
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?
Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.
I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?
You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.
Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans
The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said
Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.
All veterans? So every veteran was to be flagged and treated like a potential terrorist? Is that your claim?
Let's read what it says, shall we?

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

...

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

...

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
Does that sound like the Obama Administration trusted veterans? Because, you know, obviously -- they didn't.
Oh look at that, he wasn’t talking about all vets he was talking about those having problems re-emerging into society After returning from battle. Crazy how things change we we look at the actual words and not your warped characterizations. Have you ever seen stats on suicide rates and PTSD that these poor soles experience? Now look at you trying to politicize them to mischaracterized Obama’s legitimate concern. That’s pretty sad
Oh, look at that, you're sucking Obama's ass.

Veteran's organizations, who care about veterans far more than you and Obama do, said the memo was bullshit and insulting to veterans. And Napolitano herself apologized for the report.

Your whole "IM NOT A DEMOCRAT" schtick would have a lot more traction if you didn't regurgitate Democrat bullshit.
Frankly I have no clue what talking points Dems use. This was the first time I’ve seen that memo and I gave my thoughts about it after I read it. Where was I wrong?
Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Ow. I rolled my eyes so hard I saw my optic nerves.
good for you... why do you care so much to label me as a democrat anyways? It’s kind of a weird obsession
You'd freak out because people are allowed to buy weapons in Kentucky without the permission of the government.

And you seem to take being called a Democrat pretty personally. If you're not, what's the problem?
I don't have a problem. If people can legally buy whatever they want in Kentucky and its unregulated then go right ahead. Why would I freak out about that??
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
2,509
Reaction score
538
Points
130
Location
alaska, usa
And I would never let the sentence end for a child molester so, no, they'd never work with children.
That's another non-starter. People have "kids" which they didn't want to have in the first place, and it was too late to abort them, so they cut out their private parts with a knife, and then they have the gall to accuse other people, who may or may not have interacted with their kids in any particular circumstances, of molesting them; a rather old-fashioned word, which technically means to bother, harass, or annoy -- without necessarily any sexual connotations whatsoever -- but the criminal charge carries much, much more weight than that in court, on a much lighter burden of proof than that beyond a reasonable doubt, which usually applies to criminal statues.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
60,416
Reaction score
10,177
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
I'm not smoking anything. Maybe I should so I can understand your post.
Oh really? You mean there ain't no smoking gun with your fingerprints on it?

You're telling me a cop is taking your fingerprints at a gun sale to register your "lawfully" purchased Firearms for any other reason than to put you in prison? No. They hold even a legal gun purchase against you like a felony on your record the rest of your life.
I live in Kentucky, a rational state. No fingerprints required for a firearms purchase. Minimum age 18 for a handgun, no minimum age for shotguns or rifles.

This will make Slade3200 freak out.
Why would I freak out about that?
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?
Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.
I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?
You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.
Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans
The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said
Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.
All veterans? So every veteran was to be flagged and treated like a potential terrorist? Is that your claim?
Let's read what it says, shall we?

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

...

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

...

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
Does that sound like the Obama Administration trusted veterans? Because, you know, obviously -- they didn't.
Oh look at that, he wasn’t talking about all vets he was talking about those having problems re-emerging into society After returning from battle. Crazy how things change we we look at the actual words and not your warped characterizations. Have you ever seen stats on suicide rates and PTSD that these poor soles experience? Now look at you trying to politicize them to mischaracterized Obama’s legitimate concern. That’s pretty sad
Oh, look at that, you're sucking Obama's ass.

Veteran's organizations, who care about veterans far more than you and Obama do, said the memo was bullshit and insulting to veterans. And Napolitano herself apologized for the report.

Your whole "IM NOT A DEMOCRAT" schtick would have a lot more traction if you didn't regurgitate Democrat bullshit.
Frankly I have no clue what talking points Dems use. This was the first time I’ve seen that memo and I gave my thoughts about it after I read it. Where was I wrong?
Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Ow. I rolled my eyes so hard I saw my optic nerves.
good for you... why do you care so much to label me as a democrat anyways? It’s kind of a weird obsession
You'd freak out because people are allowed to buy weapons in Kentucky without the permission of the government.

And you seem to take being called a Democrat pretty personally. If you're not, what's the problem?
I don't have a problem. If people can legally buy whatever they want in Kentucky and its unregulated then go right ahead. Why would I freak out about that??
Because you keep pushing for more regulation.

Are you playing stupid, or are you really stupid?
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
2,509
Reaction score
538
Points
130
Location
alaska, usa
And I would never let the sentence end for a child molester so, no, they'd never work with children.
There's something that clicks about that, now.
"Polio," as well as more recently, "a rare polio-like disease," is said to have crippled many children. I suspect an ongoing scam by child-molesting doctors of the old-school establishment. They relish the children's fear of needles, and instill even greater fears in children to force them to submit to various shots, vaccinations, and other quack cures claimed to prevent dreaded but allegedly common crippling and disabling illnesses of childhood.
 

Levant

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
2,063
Reaction score
1,315
Points
903
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
I am addressing the gun crime issue....yes....that would mean that someone with a knife would recieve less time, but I am more than willing to have those sentences for any weapon. I understand the Right completely.....I am pointing out the silliness of the anti-gun extremist arguments...........been at this a long time.
You've been at this a long time? That explains why we're losing the battle. Fudds like you keep compromising a bit at a time until we're left with what we have now and, soon, we'll have nothing at all. You admit that you support every gun control law passed and implemented up to now but pretend you won't like the next one after it gets passed? I call bullshit. You will embrace UBC and thank Biden for giving it to us.

There's no such thing as a gun crime issue; there's a crime issue. Your daughter, raped at knife point, is no less raped than if she'd been raped at gun point. Rape is rape. Murder is murder.
 

Levant

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
2,063
Reaction score
1,315
Points
903
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
when you have been convicted of a crime by a jury of your peers you lose all rights because of due process
Not true at all. Do felons lose the right to a trial by jury of their peers? Do they lose the right to free speech or freedom of religion? Do they lose the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination? Why would you think that the right to keep and bear arms is any lesser of a right than all those others explicitly protected in the Constitution? What in the words of the Constitution gives you that impression?

Do you too, like 2aguy, support the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, along with a litany of others I didn't mention?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
33,898
Reaction score
3,991
Points
1,140
I'm not smoking anything. Maybe I should so I can understand your post.
Oh really? You mean there ain't no smoking gun with your fingerprints on it?

You're telling me a cop is taking your fingerprints at a gun sale to register your "lawfully" purchased Firearms for any other reason than to put you in prison? No. They hold even a legal gun purchase against you like a felony on your record the rest of your life.
I live in Kentucky, a rational state. No fingerprints required for a firearms purchase. Minimum age 18 for a handgun, no minimum age for shotguns or rifles.

This will make Slade3200 freak out.
Why would I freak out about that?
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?
Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.
I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?
You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.
Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans
The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said
Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.
All veterans? So every veteran was to be flagged and treated like a potential terrorist? Is that your claim?
Let's read what it says, shall we?

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

...

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

...

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
Does that sound like the Obama Administration trusted veterans? Because, you know, obviously -- they didn't.
Oh look at that, he wasn’t talking about all vets he was talking about those having problems re-emerging into society After returning from battle. Crazy how things change we we look at the actual words and not your warped characterizations. Have you ever seen stats on suicide rates and PTSD that these poor soles experience? Now look at you trying to politicize them to mischaracterized Obama’s legitimate concern. That’s pretty sad
Oh, look at that, you're sucking Obama's ass.

Veteran's organizations, who care about veterans far more than you and Obama do, said the memo was bullshit and insulting to veterans. And Napolitano herself apologized for the report.

Your whole "IM NOT A DEMOCRAT" schtick would have a lot more traction if you didn't regurgitate Democrat bullshit.
Frankly I have no clue what talking points Dems use. This was the first time I’ve seen that memo and I gave my thoughts about it after I read it. Where was I wrong?
Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Ow. I rolled my eyes so hard I saw my optic nerves.
good for you... why do you care so much to label me as a democrat anyways? It’s kind of a weird obsession
You'd freak out because people are allowed to buy weapons in Kentucky without the permission of the government.

And you seem to take being called a Democrat pretty personally. If you're not, what's the problem?
I don't have a problem. If people can legally buy whatever they want in Kentucky and its unregulated then go right ahead. Why would I freak out about that??
Because you keep pushing for more regulation.

Are you playing stupid, or are you really stupid?
I’m doing just fine you’re the one that seems confused here. But keep tell me about what I do and do not support... its very insightful
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
33,898
Reaction score
3,991
Points
1,140
I am addressing the gun crime issue....yes....that would mean that someone with a knife would recieve less time, but I am more than willing to have those sentences for any weapon. I understand the Right completely.....I am pointing out the silliness of the anti-gun extremist arguments...........been at this a long time.
You've been at this a long time? That explains why we're losing the battle. Fudds like you keep compromising a bit at a time until we're left with what we have now and, soon, we'll have nothing at all. You admit that you support every gun control law passed and implemented up to now but pretend you won't like the next one after it gets passed? I call bullshit. You will embrace UBC and thank Biden for giving it to us.

There's no such thing as a gun crime issue; there's a crime issue. Your daughter, raped at knife point, is no less raped than if she'd been raped at gun point. Rape is rape. Murder is murder.
True, but we don’t sell roofies at the local convenience store. What you’re gonna need to come to grips with is the fact that we don’t live in the wild Wild West anymore... as society becomes more civilized you're only going to see more Regulations on guns. That’s just the way it works. I am quite enjoying seeing you go after perhaps the biggest gun rights advocate on this board though. Please continue
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
82,747
Reaction score
20,683
Points
2,180
when you have been convicted of a crime by a jury of your peers you lose all rights because of due process
Not true at all. Do felons lose the right to a trial by jury of their peers? Do they lose the right to free speech or freedom of religion? Do they lose the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination? Why would you think that the right to keep and bear arms is any lesser of a right than all those others explicitly protected in the Constitution? What in the words of the Constitution gives you that impression?

Do you too, like 2aguy, support the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, along with a litany of others I didn't mention?

Felons who are sex offenders can't work anywhere near children....ever......

who said I support the 1934 act? or any of the other ones...?

I'm not the guy to fight....there are enough of the anti-gunners here to fight.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
33,898
Reaction score
3,991
Points
1,140
when you have been convicted of a crime by a jury of your peers you lose all rights because of due process
Not true at all. Do felons lose the right to a trial by jury of their peers? Do they lose the right to free speech or freedom of religion? Do they lose the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination? Why would you think that the right to keep and bear arms is any lesser of a right than all those others explicitly protected in the Constitution? What in the words of the Constitution gives you that impression?

Do you too, like 2aguy, support the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, along with a litany of others I didn't mention?

Felons who are sex offenders can't work anywhere near children....ever......

who said I support the 1934 act? or any of the other ones...?

I'm not the guy to fight....there are enough of the anti-gunners here to fight.
Fight him... you can get a feel for what it’s like from my eyes
 

Levant

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
2,063
Reaction score
1,315
Points
903
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
True, but we don’t sell roofies at the local convenience store. What you’re gonna need to come to grips with is the fact that we don’t live in the wild Wild West anymore... as society becomes more civilized you're only going to see more Regulations on guns. That’s just the way it works. I am quite enjoying seeing you go after perhaps the biggest gun rights advocate on this board though. Please continue
First off, I am far and away the biggest gun rights advocate on this board. I sometimes wonder if I am the only gun rights advocate on this board.

First off, I don't accept that society is more civilized today than it was 150 years ago. Having more technology does not equate to civilization. Shitting in the streets, shooting up drugs in the streets, millions of vagrants and homeless sleeping on the sidewalks, gun fights at funerals wounding dozens, 1-year-old babies shot in their beds, fathers shot while crossing the street holding their daughter's hand, those are not signs of increased civilization.

So, it's not increased civilization that leads us to more regulations on guns; it's increased government control and decreased liberty. What you're describing is increased tyranny, not increased regulation due to increased civilization. If you were correct that increased government control must come with increased civilization then mark me a gun-toting, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, anarchist. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that 1984 is not only the inevitable outcome of society but is also a good outcome for society.
 

Levant

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
2,063
Reaction score
1,315
Points
903
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
Felons who are sex offenders can't work anywhere near children....ever......

who said I support the 1934 act? or any of the other ones...?

I'm not the guy to fight....there are enough of the anti-gunners here to fight.
You said you accept the current gun laws. The ban against violent felons owning guns came with the Federal Firearms Act in 1938. You support it. The ban against all felons owning guns came in 1968. You support it. You are the guy to fight. You're as big a threat to gun rights as is Robert O'Rourke. We can fight the left because they are honest about their desire to take our guns but you, and others like you, work in secret, pretending to be our friend while stabbing us in the back with your little pin-prick gun laws.

You are the anti-gunner to fight; your first sentence in the quoted post proves it. By the way, to correllary to your sex offender analogy would be that anyone who robs a gas station wouldn't be allowed near gas stations. You didn't suggest that the sex offender have his balls or his dick removed or a lobotomy to remove the sexual urges. You want to restrict his access to the target, not to the weapon. In the case of the gun, you want special rules for the weapon.

It would be sad to be a woman under your protection knowing that you don't care as much if they're raped at knifepoint than you would care if they were raped at gunpoint. It would seem to them that you care more about which weapon the criminal used than what was done to that person you supposedly love. It seems to me that your hate for the gun exceeds your love.

Are you also suggesting that anyone who hits someone with a baseball bat should never be allowed to own a baseball bat? Anyone who stabs someone with a knife should never be allowed to own a knife? Someone who assaults another with his fist gets his hands cut off? I doubt it. It's only the gun you hate. It is only the gun, the single object explicitly protected in the Constitution, that you want to apply special rules to.

No, you're not a gun-rights advocate at all; you're a gun banner in the truest sense of the word. You're just advocating little cuts of a dagger rather than the sword in the gut that O'Rourke threatens.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
82,747
Reaction score
20,683
Points
2,180
Felons who are sex offenders can't work anywhere near children....ever......

who said I support the 1934 act? or any of the other ones...?

I'm not the guy to fight....there are enough of the anti-gunners here to fight.
You said you accept the current gun laws. The ban against violent felons owning guns came with the Federal Firearms Act in 1938. You support it. The ban against all felons owning guns came in 1968. You support it. You are the guy to fight. You're as big a threat to gun rights as is Robert O'Rourke. We can fight the left because they are honest about their desire to take our guns but you, and others like you, work in secret, pretending to be our friend while stabbing us in the back with your little pin-prick gun laws.

You are the anti-gunner to fight; your first sentence in the quoted post proves it. By the way, to correllary to your sex offender analogy would be that anyone who robs a gas station wouldn't be allowed near gas stations. You didn't suggest that the sex offender have his balls or his dick removed or a lobotomy to remove the sexual urges. You want to restrict his access to the target, not to the weapon. In the case of the gun, you want special rules for the weapon.

It would be sad to be a woman under your protection knowing that you don't care as much if they're raped at knifepoint than you would care if they were raped at gunpoint. It would seem to them that you care more about which weapon the criminal used than what was done to that person you supposedly love. It seems to me that your hate for the gun exceeds your love.

Are you also suggesting that anyone who hits someone with a baseball bat should never be allowed to own a baseball bat? Anyone who stabs someone with a knife should never be allowed to own a knife? Someone who assaults another with his fist gets his hands cut off? I doubt it. It's only the gun you hate. It is only the gun, the single object explicitly protected in the Constitution, that you want to apply special rules to.

No, you're not a gun-rights advocate at all; you're a gun banner in the truest sense of the word. You're just advocating little cuts of a dagger rather than the sword in the gut that O'Rourke threatens.

No...I said I would live with current background checks at gun stores.....pay attention.

You fight the fight your way, I'll fight it mine...
 

Levant

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
2,063
Reaction score
1,315
Points
903
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
No...I said I would live with current background checks at gun stores.....pay attention.

You fight the fight your way, I'll fight it mine...
You've also said felons should not own guns.

And you're not fighting the fight here. You're debating gun control with a handful of anonymous Internet names but nothing changes because of what we say here - except in those very rare cases where someone hears honest discussion of right and wrong and realizes and comprehends the difference. You're telling us what you think. And what you're telling us, so therefore what you think, is that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership is OK. The only difference between you and Robert O'Rourke is what is considered reasonable. But if any, any at all, is OK then any, any at all, is OK. If you accept that the government can infringe then you accept that the government can infringe. You're not at all, not even close, not in the smallest way, a 2nd Amendment guy.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top