Gun Control question for liberals?

[progressive hunter]

when you start calling for all cars to be banned we can take you seriously,,,

until then youre still a moron,,,

When you start actually reading my posts instead of making shit up maybe someone here will take you seriously.


But I doubt it.

dont worry I read every word,,,,

You've just told a lie.

maybe its you and how you present your case thats the problem,,,

like when you said burglars preferred empty houses instead of saying they preferred houses where nobody is home,,,

Anyone else would have known what I meant. Your lack of critical thinking skills is not my problem.

but you said I need to read what you say when commenting,,,

and thats what you said,,,

specifics matter bob

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

 

[progressive hunter]

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

sorry sweety but your car isnt a protected right,,,

since all background checks violate that right , them and the NRA can **** themselves,,,

Why would background checks violate your rights?

because without them I dont get the gun,,,

INFRINGE!!!!

 

[progressive hunter]

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

JUST TO BE CLEAR,,,

YOU CANT TRUST THE DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS TO DO THE RIGHT THING,,,

Government have no mind of its own,,it takes a person to **** it up

 

[BULLDOG]

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

sorry sweety but your car isnt a protected right,,,

since all background checks violate that right , them and the NRA can **** themselves,,,

Why would background checks violate your rights?

Lol
We already have background checks on all firearms purchased in retail, you ******* retard.

Yes, there are some background checks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Do you mean liberals, or Social Marxist authoritarians?

No liberals have posted here
since the OP, but a shit ton of leftist shills have.

I'll make mark if ary a liberal wanders into here

Thank you for the clarification. It has been enlightening to see so many liberals on this board in favor of personal firearms. It is those that favor a strong central government and more socialist policies pushing for limited or non gun ownership.

Wrong again.

No ‘liberal’ advocates for a ‘strong’ central government or ‘socialism,’ whatever either are supposed to be.

And no ‘liberal’ advocates for limiting or prohibiting the private ownership of guns.

Indeed, ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment jurisprudence; ‘liberals’ own guns and participate in the shooting sports.

The firearm regulatory measures ‘liberals’ propose are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, where none of the proposed measures have been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Now you have the facts with regard to ‘liberals’ and ‘gun control.’

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

criminals don't do background checks
How did that background check work for the mass shooting in Texas?

Such a stupid remark since there is no legal reason why they should.

Asking you how did the background check work in the church shooting in Texas is stupid?
so having background checks isn't what you want?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Do you mean liberals, or Social Marxist authoritarians?

No liberals have posted here
since the OP, but a shit ton of leftist shills have.

I'll make mark if ary a liberal wanders into here

Thank you for the clarification. It has been enlightening to see so many liberals on this board in favor of personal firearms. It is those that favor a strong central government and more socialist policies pushing for limited or non gun ownership.

Wrong again.

No ‘liberal’ advocates for a ‘strong’ central government or ‘socialism,’ whatever either are supposed to be.

And no ‘liberal’ advocates for limiting or prohibiting the private ownership of guns.

Indeed, ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment jurisprudence; ‘liberals’ own guns and participate in the shooting sports.

The firearm regulatory measures ‘liberals’ propose are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, where none of the proposed measures have been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Now you have the facts with regard to ‘liberals’ and ‘gun control.’

dude go blow that smoke under someone else ass.

 

[BULLDOG]

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

Quit your whining. Universal background checks wouldn't limit anybody's ability to legally own guns any more than the perfectly constitutional background checks we do now.

 

[Rigby5]

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

I have never heard of any place ever mandating safety inspections on any car, ever.
All there has ever been in any of the dozen states I have lived in, is emissions test, and even that is only in large cities. Mandated car inspections likely are illegal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

Quit your whining. Universal background checks wouldn't limit anybody's ability to legally own guns any more than the perfectly constitutional background checks we do now.

We already have background checks how did it work out in Texas?

 

[Rustic]

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

Quit your whining. Universal background checks wouldn't limit anybody's ability to legally own guns any more than the perfectly constitutional background checks we do now.

Lol
Firearm violence is the least of our worries... fact

The fact remains the vast majority of violence from people using firearms in this country are in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict gun control laws… Because all progressives are fucked in the head

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

I have never heard of any place ever mandating safety inspections on any car, ever.
All there has ever been in any of the dozen states I have lived in, is emissions test, and even that is only in large cities. Mandated car inspections likely are illegal.

People start confusing the discussion when they bring up the fallacy of vehicles and licenses and inspection.Bulldog tried it. a motor vehicle is a privilege a means of conveyance it's not a right.

 

[justinacolmena]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

You need to stop trashing people's reputations & shitting them out of the job market with your false criminal charges & stupid background checks.

And stop SWATting their homes, businesses & workplaces with fake 911 calls.

 

[BULLDOG]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

No one law will stop all related crimes. Only a child would think they could. There are laws against murder, rape, and theft, should those laws be eliminated because they don't stop every murder, rape, or theft?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

No one law will stop all related crimes. Only a child would think they could. There are laws against murder, rape, and theft, should those laws be eliminated because they don't stop every murder, rape, or theft?

but yet you want more laws?

 

[Rigby5]

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

Quit your whining. Universal background checks wouldn't limit anybody's ability to legally own guns any more than the perfectly constitutional background checks we do now.

Not true. First of all, background checks are not free, and cost $20. Second is that they invade privacy. Third is that historically they have always lead to illegal confiscation by a corrupt government. Forth is that there is no legal ability for government to deny anyone the right of self defense, even convicted felons who have served their time.
If there are people so dangerous they can't be trusted with weapons, then they can't be trusted with cars, flammables, fertilizer, poisons, or just about anything, and THEY need to be supervised constantly. You can't instead try to make the whole world nerf safe. That is impossible.
But the MAIN point is that background checks are always going to be irrelevant to criminals who already intend to violate far more serious laws.
All they do is harass and intimidate honest people.
Did the War on Drugs reduce drug availability?
No, it actually increased illegal drug availability by making the illegal market so profitable and by angering people with invasive nanny laws.
All laws like that do is increase murder by increasing the underground economy.
Make guns even more restricted and you increase murders through the increased underground economy.
We already know this from the mistake of Prohibition of Alcohol.
It always backfires, and can not possibly work.

 

[Rustic]

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

Quit your whining. Universal background checks wouldn't limit anybody's ability to legally own guns any more than the perfectly constitutional background checks we do now.

Not true. First of all, background checks are not free, and cost $20. Second is that they invade privacy. Third is that historically they have always lead to illegal confiscation by a corrupt government. Forth is that there is no legal ability for government to deny anyone the right of self defense, even convicted felons who have served their time.
If there are people so dangerous they can't be trusted with weapons, then they can't be trusted with cars, flammables, fertilizer, poisons, or just about anything, and THEY need to be supervised constantly. You can't instead try to make the whole world nerf safe. That is impossible.
But the MAIN point is that background checks are always going to be irrelevant to criminals who already intend to violate far more serious laws.
All they do is harass and intimidate honest people.
Did the War on Drugs reduce drug availability?
No, it actually increased illegal drug availability by making the illegal market so profitable and by angering people with invasive nanny laws.
All laws like that do is increase murder by increasing the underground economy.
Make guns even more restricted and you increase murders through the increased underground economy.
We already know this from the mistake of Prohibition of Alcohol.
It always backfires, and can not possibly work.

...and Firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens is certainly none of the federal governments business

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

It is a right. You cannot license a right. A license is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

If you want mandatory training, make it a mandatory part of school curriculum. Nobody gets into high school without 3 full years of mandatory gun training.

The problem is that your commie overlords don't want that, because then, nobody would have the irrational fear of guns these commie motherfuckers have worked for decades to create.

.

Wrong.

The courts have consistently upheld as Constitutional firearm licensing requirements and fees related to licensing requirements.

Permits and fees for parades and demonstrations are likewise Constitutional concerning First Amendment rights.

So a right can indeed be licensed.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘absolute,’ government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on those rights:

“It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The problem is conservatives who are ignorance of, or have contempt for, the Constitution, the rule of law, and Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[Rustic]

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

No one law will stop all related crimes. Only a child would think they could. There are laws against murder, rape, and theft, should those laws be eliminated because they don't stop every murder, rape, or theft?

And The federal government has no right to know how many and what types of firearms law-abiding citizens own.